Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Woodwork

Where'd all the crazies come from? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Keep in mind that this is the encyclopedia anyone or anything can edit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, with "anything" being the key word there. :/ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm semi interested in what new conspiracies and hijinks they will inevitably come up with! :D Brothejr (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's 60% of the reason I have this page on my watchlist. The other 40% is to laugh uncontrollably when people throw their autoconfirmation (i.e. 4 days of their lives) against the article and doing as much effect as a hand grenade against the flight deck of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The matter is being investigated by Woodwork and Bernstein. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ousider saying thank you.

This seems like a great example of what a good article should look like. Keep up the good work and thank you....Albion moonlight (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to second that, this article is very well written. It's positive in its tone yet neutral none the less, a remarkable feat considering the subject at hand. Well done, folks. --Trefalcon (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, didn't know there'd be a thank you bit. I wanted to say thank you to all positive contributors to this article and just came across this section while reading the talk page through curiosity! But yes, a well-put together article, really shows the work and effort put into it. I congratulate you all. :) londonsista | ^Prod 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

vandalism to this article

Hello, I just looked at this article and a floating box that said G8 leaders and other stuff that I won't dignify appeared. I think it's vandalism. I don't know enough how to get rid of it, but could someone please remove this? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

it also said brought to you by ass pus productions lol, so yeah, someone figure out how to get rid of it!!! TrevorLSciAct (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A day in history

Obama won in a historical day, It is recognized by the world as a day in history, I don’t know why every time, as soon as I add such sited information to the article someone remove it in just a minute, Can anyone explain? Rijndael (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to present the facts neutrally, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I absolutely agree with you that the other day was a historic moment, but it is not the place of Wikipedia to go telling people that. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

BBC News is a WP:RS and Wikipedia is the right place to write history, not to hide history! Need more explanations? Rijndael (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all even the most reliable sources are not immune from opinion, so we need to be careful about that.

In any case, my reading of the BBC article is that it was referring to Obama's status as the first black president of the US as the reason why it is "historic". The Wikipedia article already thoroughly covers this, so IMO it is better to just give the reader the facts and then decide whether and why it is historic. (FWIW, I think the fact that Obama is black is only one part of what makes this election such a historically significant event, so I'd like the opportunity to make up my own mind, thanks) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, EVERY Presidential election is historic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

On MSNBC during the election coverage someone mentioned Nov 5th now becoming a national holiday in Kenya. If we could find a reliable source, that might have a place... somewhere... ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 20:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I heard on the radio that they had declared a 2-day holiday in Kenya, but I don't think that's a permanent national holiday there, just this one time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a story about it: [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a historical day, not related to Kenya, not related to selecting a black president in a community of white majorities(in a white house); it is historical as "USA took the lead and race was not a weighted factor". Compared to EU, I don’t think we can do it in the next 10 years.

NOT EVERY Presidential election is historic as Baseball Bugs said, can anyone list the names of all presidents of the world? It is a historic event; not only in USA, but for the world, and the article must emphasis the historical nature of the event at the lead. Again Wikipedia is the right place to write history Rijndael (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but I can name all the U.S. Presidents, and their administrations were all unique, with unique challenges and accomplishments. They are all historic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, Wikipedia is absolutely not the right place to write history. There is no neutral way to gauge how historic an event is. However, reporting how momentous the world considered the occasion to be may be possible. The article already gets that across reasonably well. I would let everything cool down before mentioning anything like this explicitly. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WPBiography priority = mid?

This man is possibly the most important man alive. WPBiography has him at mid-importance (the scale is low, mid, high, top). Jenna Jameson is of higher importance to WPBiography... - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a tossup as to which of the two has taken in more seed money. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That should be nominated for Pun of the Year LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It will have to line up and wait its turn. But enough about Jenna already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed his priority to Top. Kaldari (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

religion

soemone should fix the religion posting on this site it is most certainly incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.195.98 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

may I ask what religion should be put in? I thought the religion is correct here. w_tanoto (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It gets vandalized a lot, so maybe the IP saw it one of the bazillion times when it read "Muslim" for a brief moment. <shrug> no biggie. Archiving this discussion since there is nothing more to say.. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obvious Vandalism

It says "Barack Obama is a N----" all over the bottom of the page....

Someone's mucking around with a template somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Really bad vandalism which doesnt appear in the normal edit page

Sorry for the breach of protocol and putting this at the top of the discussion page, but at the bottom below the reference section are multiple sections titled Obama is a N*gger (sans censoring) and filled with similar hate speech. I can't figure out why these don't appear in the edit page and feel this may require the attention of an administrator. Shadowblade (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious Vandalism

Some idiot has typed the word "nigger" all over this article. I can't believe that there is no automated means of preventing this.

For instance, if the word is typed two times or more in a row, just block the edit or do even more.

I can't see how to just delete it so I'm posting here.

71.85.148.105 (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a F-ed up template somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It was Template:Bbcnews. Someone else semi-blanked it to remove the vandalism, so I reverted back to the good version and semi-protected it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to the poster above. Get these hateful words off article!

To all. Don't add templates which are not at least semi-protected to this article or other high risk articles, ever. Cenarium ^Talk 04:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to work on splitting this article

The article is now 131kb, and will only get longer, so it is a good idea to begin discussions on what sections should be moved into a secondary article, and what sections can be trimmed and referred to the secondary articles. Currently it takes me (with DSL) 33 seconds to load, and 49 seconds to load the edit page. That's pretty significant, and would only be slower for those with lesser ISPs. I would suggest following the style of the most recent Presidential article, George W. Bush, and maybe create additional secondary articles as well as moving more of the information into those secondary articles, such as Early life and career of Barack Obama. The section on his early life in this article seems longer than it should be when another article exists on the same subject, and compared with Bush's. Other articles, such as Public perception of Barack Obama, Criticism of Barack Obama, and when appropriate, separate articles for Domestic policy and Economic policy of the Obama administration, could possibly be created as well. For Bush, early life is a separate article from career, so maybe it should be split into two here, as well? Shouldn't the naming of the secondary articles follow the same standard, they aren't doing so currently. Bush's secondary articles are named differently than Obama's. (as my initial edit of this shows, until I dug deeper and found that some articles existed already, just named differently) Ariel♥Gold 12:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This article was written in summery style and there is a daughter article going deeper into detail for every section. In the past, the editors tried to only keep the most important things in his life in the main article and relegated everything else, including in depth discussions, to the daughter article. If you check each section within the main article, you will also see a daughter article at the top of the section. Brothejr (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's understood, it is a featured article, after all, but my point is that the article is already far too long by WP:SIZE standards, and as President elect, Obama's article will be expanded significantly in the future. Thus, it is time to prune some of the areas that have secondary articles and move that information into the secondary articles, obviously keeping the key details, but at the same time, helping to reduce the article's size. Again, the example of Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career, compared to Bush's: George_W._Bush#Childhood_to_mid-life and George_W._Bush#Early_career. As President, the information on those areas will be expanded, and to keep the article down in size they could be split into two separate articles using the same naming conventions used with Bush's, and thus reduce this article's size. (The fifth and sixth paragraphs in the early life section, for example, are not particularly necessary when a secondary article already exists that should cover that time period in depth. The same with the third-to-last paragraph.) After 8 years as President, Bush's article is the same size that Obama's is currently, so obviously some things that may have been important prior to the election, could be moved into secondary articles, without compromising the integrity of the FA status. Note that this is in no way a criticism of the article at all, but more of a "looking forward" suggestion. Ariel♥Gold 13:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ariel. Let's make the decisions on this article that allow it to exist in the long-run on par with other presidents. The earlier we make the changes, the better the daughter articles will be. Also, it's not a bad idea to try to conform titles of daughter articles, but obviously different presidents face different challenges and outcomes, so many articles will remain very different.LedRush (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the concerns over size. The "readable prose" of the article (which WP:SIZE is concerned with) is only 30 kilobytes. Regular editors should continue to monitor new additions to make sure that they agree with WP:WEIGHT, including (if necessary) moving things to child articles, but there is no need for the article to be split. I recommend using the page size script by adding the following to your monobook.js file:

importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); //[[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]]

-- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with the current length -- it's neither overlong nor unwieldy nor difficult to follow. The huge bulk of the putative "size" of the article is all of the incredibly detailed back matter and additions. The prose of the article itself is only about 35 KB, which is fine for a President. I think once he is in office it may become necessary to spin off info on his presidency. Meanwhile, if people find the article feeling long, just add subheadings or subsubheadings for clarity and organization and ease of reading. EDIT: Although, I do understand concerns about page-loading time, so yeah, need to spin-off and split for that reason, or else trim a lot of the tables and charts and footnotes and categories and external links and references and such. Softlavender (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's my thinking, while I'd love to prune out more stuff from the article, I do know that what's in there now is basically a bare bones information on him. Like you said, it is already is written in summry style (I.E. bare bones descriptions of the really major portions of his life) and there are already have daughter articles that are sub articles of the main page in each section (I.E. Early life and career of Barack Obama, Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004, United States Senate career of Barack Obama, List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate, and so on)). So when a person wants to read more about that section of hsi life, all they have to do is click on the sub article to go on. About the only thing I can think of to reduce the size, and even then it might not reduce it that much, is to work on the wording of what is already there. Maybe we can shorten the prose a bit. However, I don't see us really being able to shorten the article that much without really removing a lot of basic major information. Brothejr (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to rehash this... The article has 30k of readable prose which is well within WP:SIZE's guidelines. There are also 38k of references and that is just the references themselves, not the text from the cite templates, so it's probably safe to double that 38k to account for the ref tags and use of cite templates, the remainder of the size of the article is the multitude of infoboxes, templates, categories, other languages, etc, etc that exist at the bottom of the article. However, all of that is just a pittance compared to the almost 400k of images that are used in this article. We could trim this article down to just the images and have it be less than 1k of wikitext, but it would still load as a 400k article and still take ages to load via modem because of the images alone. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the stated objective of pruning or splitting the article. Tempshill (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Where to put transition announcements and news

That would be Presidential transition of Barack Obama
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Positions held at bottom of page

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but at the bottom of the page, Obama is listed as the "Incumbent" President (which is wrong), from 2009-present (which is extremely bad form, since 2009 hasn't happened yet). I'm not saying leave Obama off. I think as a compromise, instead of "Incumbent", saying "President-elect" or "President-designate" (per that discussion above), and dates of office as "Scheduled to be inaugurated 2009" or some other information. -- Jwinters | Talk 21:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In furtherance of my argument, the page for George W. Bush has Bush listed as the incumbent President. That means: according to Wikipedia, there are currently 2 sitting U.S. Presidents. At the very least the inconsistancy should be resolved. -- Jwinters | Talk 21:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama is not the incumbent, he's not the President, and he's not the "President-designate". He wasn't "designated", he was elected. He's the President-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. What I was saying above (I'm not signed in, but I'm Jwinters), is that there was a discussion on this page over what to call Obama, and I was just stating that I would agree to have put under positions held whatever was the result of that discussion. -- 97.113.88.248 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Call him "Mr. President-elect". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Learned of grandmother's death one day before elected president"

First off, I know this is a *highly* watched article, and my comment might get lost in all the others, but I think the part of the article mentioning that he learned of his grandmother's death one day before being elected President is a bit oddly-worded. Usually in articles such as these, I would think the first mention that he's elected would be afterwords, in the sentence or two that deals with Nov. 4, as he didn't know he'd be elected Nov. 3 (her date of death). Could it maybe be changed to something along the lines of that he learned of her death one day before the election? The next sentence will state the outcome of the election, it's up to the reader to therefore come to the conclusion that she died before he was elected president. (I know my concern is worded less clearly than the muddled sentence I'm referring to, but just wanted to put this out for consensus. Even though I'm an experienced editor, with such an important article, I feel even a minor change like this should be discussed here.) --Canuckguy (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Mrs Dunham died on the night of November 2 (Hawaiian Time). GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it was two days "before the election". His subsequently being elected is amply covered otherwise. Let's not be over-redundant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

She died at close to midnight in Hawaii, when it was already November 3 in the lower 48. So Obama indeed learned of it the day before the election. I of no opinion about whether his success in the election need be mentioned. PhGustaf (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The notes section...

MOS says no
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...is annoyingly long. Could we put it in a div like so — User:J.delanoy/1#Notes? Obviously, if we were to go this route, we would have to change some things to get it to format correctly, but before someone asks, it does automatically scroll the div to the correct place if you click on, for example, ref #170, which does not show up when the page initially loads. J.delanoygabsadds 00:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC) MoS forbids it; Wikipedia:Citing sources#Scrolling lists. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Oh. Now I feel dumb... J.delanoygabsadds 20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Brad Pitt, Madonna, Other Bloodline Connections

No.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think that the 'family' section should note some shocking bloodline connections, which includes prievious American presidents and major celebrities such as Brad Pitt and Madonna. Perhaps this deserves a category of its own. Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions? Sources: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23797072/ http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/860708,genes032508.article http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/wireStory?id=4521690 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurolanis (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Only if it can be determined that Obama had some say in the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Non-notable trivia. Everyone is related to everyone at some level. Wikidemon (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Indeed. I, for example, am distantly related to Roger Rabbit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I think shocking is a bit of an overstatement. I would find it shocking if he was related to Hitler, or Jesus, or maybe Jenna Jameson. Considering those relations are like six generations removed, they're not really notable. We're all related, when you get right down to, after all. ~ L'Aquatique! [talk/stats] 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Heh, interesting tidbit it is, but as L'Aquatique says, it's not really notable on an article about Barack Obama. Maybe on an article about Genealogy... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Or maybe an article about genealogy of the Presidents, which would narrow the scope a bit. Isn't it the case that Obama is related to Bush, for example? And obviously you don't want to go too far back or it becomes silly, unless he has interesting direct ancestors. But relatives within the past 2 centuries could be an interesting subject - on a page of its own. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Yeah, Obama is the TENTH cousin once removed to George Bush...that means that in 1662 their ancestory merges... as for Pitt, it's NINTH cousin... which probably means somebody in the late 1600's. This is pure unadulterated trivia. Hell, I'm probably related to Obama at some level... heck, I know I am, one of my ancestors shares an ancestor of an ancestor of Obama... perhaps, we should add that Balloonman is related to Obama? And oh, BTW, 3 websites citing the same article are not three sources, it's really one.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether he's number II or not

A recent editor has removed the II from the end of his name. Since it's in bold at the top of the article, and he's one of the most important people in the world now, we ought to get his name right. Since his father has exactly the same name, it stands to reason that he would be II, or 'Jr.' - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that there are no references to him as such. See above. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 12:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What about this - [2]? I've put the II back. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Birth certificate trumps popular usage. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 12:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference creep

There has been a spate of reference additions to the article's introductory paragraphs. An earlier consensus was established on this talk page to try to keep references in this area down to an absolute minimum, particularly because of the Featured Article status. For example, the full name was recently cited with the birth certificate, yet this also occurs in the first section of the body of the article. Please bear this in mind when considering references in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, many of these citations need to be moved from the lead to the body or removed altogether. Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Page views!

This article has received so many views in a single article in one day. Over 2 million views yesterday, is that a record? So anyways keep up the good work! [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.203.225 (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it a record? No. But it's pretty close. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama and the internet

The way Obama has used the internet during both the primaries and the presidential campaigns are well known. Seeing the speed at which the [www.change.gov] website has been launched, I beleive that he intends to take e-goverenence to the next notch. Can we include a section on Obama and the internet? --Natrajdr (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a promising idea. US TV news sources have certainly commented on this new type of campaign. Does anyone have any good links to sources? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is not exactly the place, but it's important to note that the Obama camp's savviness was in contrast to McCain's almost defiant ignorance of the internet, as discussed by a columnist in Newsweek this past summer. I've got a hunch the 2012 campaign will be a lot different. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not if Palin 2012 became a reality. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Being the first major politician to use the power of Internet both for his campaign and for governance (expected) at a national level, I believe we can include a section in this article. --Natrajdr (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Enhanced version of "Ann Dunham with Father and children" Image Available

I have uploaded an enhanced version of this file in which I enlarged it, reduced noise and resaturated the color. I did not want to replace the original file with the enhanced version without consensus so I uploaded it as (click on image for page):

200px

—Blanchette (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Demo numbers

The fact that he got the most black votes was probably evident, but he also got the most white votes for a Democrat since Carter? That's pretty significant. Thoughts? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

I find the structure of the article quite odd. These are the main headers:

1. Early life and career
2. State legislator, 1997–2004
3. 2004 U.S. Senate campaign
4. U.S. Senator, from 2005
5. 2008 presidential campaign
6. Political positions
7. Family and personal life
8. Cultural and political image
9. 44th President of the United States

Since the first 5 sections account for his career followed by his political/personal/cultural/social beliefs, why is "44th President of the United States" after all this? Wouldn't it make sense that it follows the "2008 presidential campaign" section in order to the chronological order of his political career? Thanks — Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I would second this. Anyone else? --GoodDamon 00:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I approve as well. Duuude007 (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Change the number!!

Barack Obama is -not- the 44th president. He is the 43rd. Grover Cleveland had two non-consecutive terms. Shinigami4200 (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleveland is considered to be the 22nd and 24th President. There have only been 43 presidents (once Obama is inaugurated), but because of how the numbering works, Obama is #44. --harej 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey! 44! Hammerin' Hank Aaron's number! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

West Ham

Hi, maybe this should go in the personal life section. it's been reported that he is a fan of the English football (or soccer) team West Ham and has been invited to attend a match when he next visits Britain. Neutral source being the bbc:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/w/west_ham_utd/7714322.stm

Worthy of addition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.74.243 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a minor piece of trivia I think. Also the reports that he is a "fan" are extrapolating somewhat from the fact that he has been to one game. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions Section: Keep or Eliminate

The Political Positions Section: Keep it? Revise it as positions change? Eliminate it since the election is over and he is the president? George W. Bush's article doesn't have political positions (maybe because government policy is the president's position unless otherwise stated). Or do we cite "other crap exist"? I have no opinion either way, just thought that this article needs a decision.

The advantages of keeping it: It is a record of his positions.

The advantages of deleting it: He is now president. The disadvantages of deleting it: If it was good before but not now, wasn't it then a campaign tool unknowingly forced on Wikipedia? Spevw (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe every politian article, as his/her profession title denotes it, should define its position on political subjects (ideology) or just by quoting his/her positions. politicians, show people what they talk about no? isnt this profession about that? regards--Andersmusician NO 07:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"born outside the Continental United States" placement

The statment " Obama is the first U.S. President born outside the Continental United States" is not well placed.

1) It has nothing to do with subject heading, which refers to his campaign only. Additionally, the material under this heading is mostly chronological, and ends with his vicotry speech (indicating the end of the campaign. Then the statment is added, as if it was a non-sequitor. 2)It adds a meaning that isnt' there. It comes after the statement "Obama proclained that 'change has come to America,' as if the change came because he was born in Hawaii.

Anyone who has the power to, can this be moved to a more appropriate location? Like the intro, or after mentioning the fact that he was born in Hawaii (E.g: Obama was born in Hawaii, (making him the first president to be born outside the Contiguous United States)

211.128.87.3 (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Nishanoire

It could be changed to "the lower 48". That term is commonly used to refer to anything but Alaska and Hawaii. Duuude007 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Lower 48" isn't terribly accurate, since Hawaii is "lower" (i.e., farther south) than any other state. Coemgenus 18:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How can Obama be the first US President born outside Contintental USA? He's not the US President until January 20th, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we remove it from the article entirely. He's the first (President / nominee / president-elect / Harvard Law Review EIC / etc) who is X, where X is any of a hundred different things ranging from born in Hawaii to born in the 1960s. The only salient one that is not entirely included in another category is that he's soon to be the first African-American President, and probably the Harvard Law Review (in the body, not the lead). Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured article with cleanup template?

As of current version, the article is labeled as featured, but has a cleanup template at the start of the "2008 presidential campaign" section. That doesn't seem right. — Alan^✉ 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if the template needs to be there. If it does, I'll submit for FAR - if it doesn't, I'll remove it. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm keeping a tight watch on this article. I'll give it about an hour (this is a busy article, that's enough chance) and unless the problem's fixed, I'll take it to FAR. I'm not going to do it, as every load of this article is painfully slow for me. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a bath half way through, and as a result the hour turned into 2-and-a-half. Since nobody's fixed it, I'm submitting this for FAR. It pains me, but Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that must (and should, respectively) be followed. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a great time for a FAR. The article just went through one a month or two ago, although it was a bad faith attempt to make some kind of point. The article was at FA status just a few days ago, and any damage done is pretty superficial. At the same time, the change in his status from candidate to president-elect, and soon to president, will make this a moving target. It will take some time for everything to get updated and settle down. Perhaps it's impossible to keep a sitting president's article at FA status. Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that we went through a FAR just about a month ago, I do think that we need to go through this article and take a look at the literally hundreds of edits that had been done to it after he won the election. It seems as soon as he was elected the dam burst and all those people who had been staying away from the article came bursting forth and adding/changing whatever they wanted without really considering the article's FA status, style, or whatever. While I am not advocating removing it's FA status, I think we need tot take a hard look at it and see what can be reverted, cleaned up, or simply removed to bring it back to the full status it was before. Brothejr (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - if any article should be FA, it's this one, but the breaking of that dam means it's no longer up to standard. It's a shame, but it must be done. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 21:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but I would wait until Monday to start the process. That gives people a weekend to get things out of their system and for things to quiet down. Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already submitted it for FAR - it's too late to abort. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Um...major vandalism...

Somebody replaced every instance of the word 'President' in this article with the word 'negro'. This is obvious vandalism and should be corrected at once. In fact, we should lock this article until the whole election fuss calms down.

67.149.84.44 (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This was already corrected a while ago. Sionus [talk] 23:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I still seem to be getting the vandalized version, 18:40 EST. Seems to be fixed. 170.140.70.195 (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you get an old version of any page, just add ?action=purge to the end of the URL. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Image change (here we are again)

Someone recently changed the lead image (again). I don't see any discussion here about it, though it was proposed and rejected many times in the past. The new image isn't terrible, but I kind of prefer the prior one. Specifically, while I like the color saturation and pose of the newer one, I find it jarring that he is looking away from the text (which a stylistic no-no). Other opinions? LotLE×talk 19:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The recent discussion is at Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus on Image. Given the unholy mess this talk page has become, it's quite understandable you couldn't find it :D

The dominant consensus seemed to be that the advantages in terms of the color saturation, etc., outweighed the composition issues. Hopefully now that he's president-elect (or president-designate? Argh!!) we'll get a better free option soon. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Locking the whole thing was the right thing to do. Otherwise the Obama machine will take this page down completely. It seems to be written by his campaign. Really no negatives in the article. User:The Messiah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.238.55 (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism/Controversy of Barack Obama article proposal

I am currently writing this article idea, trying to get some ideas on everyones feelings before/if I upload it. I had a general discussion about the appropriate sources needed on IRC and I feel I am meeting those standards. Thanks! 72.192.216.42 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just make the article a link to the Rush Limbaugh page and that should cover it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Try to spell his name right, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)'

I believe I did. You approve? 72.192.216.42 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You had it as "Barrack", which is a dormitory for soldiers. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll save you some time: don't. Articles that focus on criticism of a subject are inherently pov and often violate the biography of living persons rule because they put more emphasis on the negative than the positive (it's supposed to be equal). ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw some lead balloons flying by. However, there have been exceptions, such as the spinoff article Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). However, that's a different situation, as he's in the sensationalism business anyway, and because there is too much of it to put in his main article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Only when the criticism is of sufficient quantity frequency in and of itself to be notable should there ever be an article like that. Frankly, I think the BillO criticism article should be deleted as a pretty obvious WP:COATRACK. Can't stand the guy, but that doesn't mean we should ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --GoodDamon 00:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It makes for some interesting reading, though. And it's unlikely O'Reilly himself would mind. He likes anything that draws attention to himself, be it good or bad. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone see this guy's previous contribs?--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he just likes to laugh... a lot. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 02:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I can not help that, I am using an ip. Calm down, Can I make it or not? 72.192.216.42 (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's POV. I like this article in its current non-fawning/non-critical state. Tim010987 (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about a whole new article. Other people who are far less important have one so why can't Obama? It will be well sourced. 72.192.216.42 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet Infobox

Good day to all. I have prepared Template:Obama cabinet infobox so that as cabinet members are named, they can be conveniently added. Also, once he is inaugurated, we can just put the box on the article without any time delay. --harej 01:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember though, cabinet appointments are not automatic. They require consent from the US Senate. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Label the box "Cabinet nominees", with the date nominated, and the date they are confirmed by the Senate to clarify each nominee's status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.218.124 (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That won't really be necessary, because the box isn't going to go into the article until Obama is President, and once it is in the article, it should reflect the actual cabinet as confirmed by the Senate. --harej 22:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

On his victory speech

How about adding that Obama promised to be president for all Americans - the central theme of his speech? That is a significant contrast with Bush, who acclaimed that he earned political capital in the election and intends to spend it. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The theme is identical to Bush's 2000 speech, and to most first-term Presidents' victory speeches. Coemgenus 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa whoa time out. So because it is an "identical" theme as you phrase it, you simply deem it non-notable? This was a deeply divided election, and there is much healing to be done. People all over and on the internet and still rambling and yelling about how much they hate Obama and want him to fail. So it should be included in the article. It's not one of those "theme" times. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pic of Barack as child with Ann Dunham

I added this to the page a week ago and noticed it was reverted. Cause certain editors get power-hungry on Wikipedia and revert things even if they only serve to enhance the article and are not in poor judgment. Anyway, someone else recently re-added it to the 'early life' section and it stood for 2-3 days. Now it has been removed again. Sometimes it's like you cannot enhance or add to this page without automatically being reverted, eh, ya know, just because. Will somebody please re-add the pic? Tim010987 (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've been building and contributing to this article on and off for about a year now, so I'm not one of the newcomers who deserves the automatic-revert treatment. Tim010987 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's being discussed whether the picture should exist in the Wikipedia in the first place, since some editors view it as not significant to the understanding of the article. For more information about it, please visit the deletion discussion here.

By the way, I'm the one who removed it from the main Obama article, I just placed it in the early life article. --Aeon17x (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama template contents

This is a pretty minor issue all told, but there's a dispute over the "family" section in the {{Barack Obama}} template between myself and User:Benjiboi. You can see the history at Template talk:Barack Obama; it concerns the recent addition of the relationship in parentheses to some members of Obama's family. Bringing it here because not too many people check the template talk page, I imagine.

While I'll grant that the relationship between Obama and, say, Maya Soetoro-Ng is not obvious at first, my general feeling is that brevity comes first on a navigational template. Ideally each group should only take a single line on most screens, and these additions often stretch the family group to two. I mean, I'll again grant that this is useful information, but plenty of templates have horrendously complex teminology in them that isn't explained in the template because that quite simply isn't the place for that, and the more space a template uses the more devalued each entry becomes. Any thoughts? This isn't the end of the world, but there's some value to keeping templates clean and concise in my mind. SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Assassination Plans, Plots, and Attempts

Can I add a section or subsection regarding this topic to the main Barack Obama Wikipedia article if I cite the info with articles elsewhere on the Internet? I have a source from todayonline.com, The Los Angeles Times, and BBC News. Please let me know; thanks.

Zeryphex (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. I appreciate your good-faith effort, but we don't need to be spreading that. ;) Tim010987 (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's main Wikipedia article contains information on assassination attempts. There is also another Wikipedia article completely devoted to one assassination attempt. Why is Barack Obama's Wikipedia article exempt from this? Zeryphex (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping it was clear, but: Reagan is dead. Obama is alive, and black. So we don't need to be giving people ideas. It's not encyclopedic anyway. Tim010987 (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I hardly see what either of those points have to do with anything. The real reason is because no one took an actual attempt on Obama. I'm sure thousands of people have though of killing any President, but those aren't notable, without an actual attempt. CTJF83Talk 04:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Also, not every two-bit criminal or racist who has an "Obama plot" needs to be a Wikipedia celebrity, or a media celebrity for that matter. Tim010987 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Another simple way to say it is that none of the plots were very serious (as these things go) or rose to the level that would commonly be understood as an attempt, and none got very much coverage beyond the news of the day. So they are not particularly notable to Obama's biography.Wikidemon (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has attempted to assassinate him, unlike Reagan. Just let it go. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 16:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

In the beginning of the article, there is the text:

Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk hʊˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the President-elect of the United States and the junior United States Senator from Illinois

I think we are missing the name that every calls him by: "Barack Obama". I would amend the text as:

Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk hʊˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; usually called Barack Obama, born August 4, 1961) is the President-elect of the United States and the junior United States Senator from Illinois

Think about it.--FocalPoint (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In biographical articles, the first sentence typically spells out the full name. The more common name is used throughout the rest of the article. Coemgenus 18:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that, this is why I did not proceed to change it. However, it does make more sense to me to have a place in such biographical articles where it is clearly stated that the person in question was referred to during his era as .... Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton (as is the article name, after all).--FocalPoint (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Even the President-elect himself does not use either "II" or "Jr" suffix in his legal filings (2006 federal tax return). It may be telling to see what form they use during his swearing-in. I personally think that the lead-off name should be the one used by the subject him or herself, details such as birth certificate as a notation, consistent with other people of note (examples: John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe, Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr., John Paul II, etc.) Fredmdbud (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, per the MOS we use the full formal name in the first reference, then the commonly used formal name thereafter. Those are "Barack Hussein Obama II" and "Barack Obama" ("Obama" for short) elsewhere. See the "names" section under Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Names. I see no reason for deviating from the MOS here. It is no different than the analogous examples given there, e.g. "Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz" for "Fidel Castro" Wikidemon (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to add fact on age

I don't think that this fact is in the article... as far as I can tell, Obama will be the second-youngest elected president of the United States (behind John F. Kennedy), and third-youngest president overall (the youngest having been Roosevelt). Obama's relative youth has been the topic of some discussion in the media; can this be added? *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 21:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to find a source supporting your research on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this article here, both Bill Clinton and Ulysses S. Grant were younger. Obama turned 47 last August.Ericl (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

to be fixed

In the Early life section delete, or at least fix the misspelling in the sentence: "It was during this time that he learned about equaliy [sic] and unity and became involved in Scouting." I read the source article and the source doesn't support this broad claim: only says that one random person on the streets of indonesia who claims to have known him as a kid sees these concepts in his speeches as they were taught in his school. It doesn't seem to me to be a point worth making in this wiki article. 72.86.40.219 (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, since we're not counting the NE-2 electoral vote yet: para. 4 of the intro: "he won 53% of the popular vote and 364 electoral college votes" Also, what is the standard you guys are using for calling states on this thing, because NBC News has called Missouri for McCain. 67.241.18.181 (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth is Aug. 4, 1961, 7:24 pm, in Hawaii (Honolulu?). This article is locked or I'd have fixed it already. The D.O.B. is relevant to and useful; please add this. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.99.118 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I second that idea. I also found it a little sketchy that a quote like this was included as fact based only on a passer-by. Potterc7 (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and take this out. The scouting bit might be fine if it can be sourced, but the "equality and unity" business is pure propaganda.0nullbinary0 (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: infobox. I recommend replacing "Taking office" with "Term begins"

As this is such a sensitive and important article, we need to be more "official" when editing this page. "Taking office January 20, 2009" sounds too presumptuous. I recommend replacing this with "Term begins January 20, 2009". With President-elect Obama having already won the election, the next four-year term of office belongs to him, obviously. But only that much is certain.

The reason for this is, in the unforeseen event of his resignation, disqualification, or (God forbid) incapacitation or death as President-elect, obviously then the next eligible person in the line of succession (which is currently Vice President-elect Joe Biden) would have to serve out Obama's entire four-year term as president (though the term of office would still technically be Obama's, not his successor's).

(Note here that I use the term "disqualification" rather than "impeachment" or "removal", as the latter two terms would not be applicable to a president-elect who has yet to assume the office) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean 2015 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Taking office" or "assuming office" are not presumptuous, they are normal terminology. Obviously, "term begins" also conveys the same information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Biden is not currently the next in line, because despite all the discussion above, deciding to call them president elect and vice president elect doesn't make them that. They are not yet anything-elect, and if anything should happen to Obama between now and 15-Dec the DNC would have to pick a new candidate, who might very well not be Biden. Then they'd have to convince all the D electors to obey their choice, which might not be a simple task. And this is why getting that "-elect" term right is so important — once Biden is VP-elect, which happens on 15-Dec, the constitution explicitly guarantees that come 20-Jan, if for any reason Obama is not ready to take office, Biden will take his place. Until 15-Dec the constitution makes no such guarantee, because he's not yet VP-elect. -- Zsero (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You apparently overlooked the revelation that federal law defines the term "President-elect" to include the "apparent" winner of the election. So there is no dispute that Obama and Biden are, at this moment, the President-elect and Vice President-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A law funding the transition says that the money can be released and the transition start as soon as the result is apparent, without waiting for the formal election. For convenience, it says that it will use the term "president elect" of the person who's clearly going to be elected, even before he actually is elected. It says nothing about the proper use of the term. In any case, the question here was who is next in line, and it is clear that right now Biden is not next in line, because no matter what the newspapers say, or even what any Act of Congress says, he is in fact not vice president elect. If he were vice president elect, as he will be after 15-Dec, then he would be automatically next in line, and nobody could change that. -- Zsero (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless something happens to Obama, who's "next in line" is a moot issue, and Biden is the Vice President-elect. They will "officially" become the PE and the VPE, not on December 15th, but on January 6th when the electors' votes are certified by the joint session. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Written Words: scholarly articles from Harvard?

Regarding the section "written works": didn't President-elect Obama author scholarly articles that would warrant inclusion in the "written works" section? Maybe someone can look these up. --71.237.93.206 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only the first African American US President

Obama also is the first African American and first biracial in history to run on a major party ticket.[4] Would be great if it could be incorporated into the lead. --77.185.74.21 (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How about a section on speeches?

Admirers and detractors of his positions agree that Obama is an unusually effective oratorr. I see that one entire article is devoted to just one of his speeches. This seems to err on the generous side, but it was a very significant speech and I'm not knocking the article. (Surely it's at least as significant as "Deadheads for Obama.") Particularly in view of that article, what surprises me is that there seems to be no quick account of his set of speeches. If there's not enough for an independent article, I'd have thought that a section of this article could deal with them. (I'm not volunteering to do this as I don't know enough--I'm just posting this suggestion as a would-be reader.) Or have I missed something? Morenoodles (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Middle" life image

I would like to see an image of him either in his 20's/30's, or at least in his earlier political career. I think it just jumps too much in the body from a childhood image to his political image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussions about image

Image

I propose changing the image to Image:BarackObama2005portrait.jpg. --Chinneeb_{my talk} 06:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicer image, but the turning of the body will make it look very strange on the main page. Risker (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's a wonderful portrait, IMO - more dignified yet more personal, and certainly higher quality in lighting and composition. However, in the interest of fairness and symmetry I think we should wait until after the election. McCain's portrait is similar to Obama's current one, a direct frontal shot against a textured blue-grey background. The two are not bad, but also not incredibly flattering either. Although there is no policy or guideline requirement to make candidates' articles look alike, I think it's most proper for the moment, and a better fit to appear side-by-side on the main page. So my 2 cents is ask again tomorrow at this time...Wikidemon (talk)

Who said anything about the main page? –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The turning of the body will also make it strange in this article, per WP:MOS#Images, since he'll be looking off the text. (And I'm always leery of images that haven't been vetted at FAC or FAR, even if Commons claims they're free: prefer to have an image reviewer check them out.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it not simply possible to flip the image horizontally in order to have him face the text? Elpasi (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some rules that prohibits flipping images (unless they are then clearly marked as such). It was an issue at Palin's page shortly after her nomination as VP if you want to check this out. I dunno have time know; Gotta go voting.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hint: check the (Palin)image hystory at commons.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on Image

For most of yesterday (and the recent past), one photo of Obama (Image 1, below) was used and it has recently been changed (to Image 2, below). I think we need to come to a concensus on which to use because both are used in a range of different articles. I even changed one yesterday claiming it should match that which is used in the official biographical page.

Here are the photos in question:

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2
• Image 3 (edit of Image 2 to reduce flash highlights)
  Image 3 (edit of Image 2 to reduce flash highlights)
• 
  Image 4 (crop of Image 3)

Hopefully we can reach some concensus on this and use one of them throughout Wikipedia. Currently, Image 1 has more links to it from legitimate articles, though this can change since there are Wikipedians going around asking to replace it with Image 2. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 1 - I believe this is a quality portrait. It is straight on and shows details of the face, etc. Image 2 is cropped in an odd way and is not centered at all. It is also not from the front. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - At least until January 20th, 2009. By then Obama's presidential portrait will be revealed. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 1 - Just because image 2 is compositionally unsound (he should be facing the page, not away from it). Also, Image 1 gives a clearer view of his face. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 or any variant thereof- While the composition is not perfect at least it looks more official. Dr.K. (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - While the composition could be better, I find the second image has much more pleasing lighting and also superior resolution. (behold, the election that REALLY counts. :p) TheOtherSiguy (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - I was almost swayed by the compositional problems, but I agree with TheOtherSiguy -- the overall more pleasing visual effect of Image 2 trumps it for me. Image 1 looks almost like it could be a mug shot, heh. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 3 - the lighting and the tonal range of number 2 outweighs the fact that compositionally it would be better is he were facing the other way. Mfield (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 Prefer the more relaxed facial expression. --Janke | Talk 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 3 (really Image 2 Edit 1). Everyme 17:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2. Image one looks like a passport photo...image 2 is much more asthetically pleasing.LedRush (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 1 No preference. - The first is overly lit and his grin is taut, but his face fills the image better with more detail and symmetry. Since both images have problems, I hope that a better portrait is uploaded ASAP. Modocc (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - better tonal range, but cropping the left and bottom would probably improve it. de Bivort 17:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - The lighting and tone are more pleasing, the flag makes it look more official and his smile looks more spontaneous.— Ѕandahl ♥ 18:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If Image 2 is legally ours to use, I would go with it. Tvoz/talk 18:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 as long as there are no copy write issues with the image (We've already run into that problem with other Obama pictures in the past!) Brothejr (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image2 - fits better with other presidential portraits on the list. None of the others are passport-style. DewiMorgan (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - This image has been used on the main election article. Matches with other presidents portraits. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 i don't really see the difference between it and image 3. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a rather restrained touch up, but notice the reduced flash highlights on the cheek and nose. Everyme 01:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No real pref at this time, but for information: image 2 was originally uploaded in 2006 (current version from April 2008), while image 1 was uploaded May 2008. I'm guessing that's about when image 2 was replaced by image 1. The recent change from image 1 was not directly to image 2, but to Image:Who-is-barack-obama.jpg. Gimmetrow 22:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 or 3. Pics are more presidential looking and set him apart from the rest of the Congressional mugshots. miranda 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 - It's a better portrait overall. Image 1 looks like a school yearbook portrait. Ryooki (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe another option, Image:BarackObamaportrait.jpg -Marcusmax(speak) 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If I remember right, wasn't that the picture that had a copy write problem? (I.E. while it was on a government website, the shot was taken by a non-government photographer who contacted Wikipedia to say that he still had the rights to the photo and not the government.) Brothejr (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You might very well be correct, I just was at Obama's Senate Page and there it says that you have to call for image details. We can't do that obviously as a violation of WP:NOR, do if someone could find more info about the owner of this it would be great. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at question 17 in the FAQs above, you will see that it is a copyrighted image and cannot be used. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 2 all the way. He looks good in it. I am sorry, but I don't like Image 1 at all (IMO, it's just ugly). Image 3 is fine. Few people noticed the difference. Also, in Image 2/3, there is an american flag, which indicates he is american/future president. w_tanoto (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 1 Shouldn't we be using the most current one? 2,3,4 are almost 3 years old.

Okay there is a resounding preference for Image 2. Personally I don't see a difference between Image 2 and Image 3. I will begin placing Image 2 in pages where Obama's picture is needed. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

New Picture

This picture of Obama has been doctored (I hope). It reflects mucus, or snot, running down from his nostrils and over his bottom lip. Is this normal or an effect of lighting? Either way, I'd change the picture to something less...weird. Digital^Ninja 23:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean Image:BarackObama2005portrait.jpg, it's either the lighting or it's already been changed.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have cropped Image 3, in case you would like to consider it. --harej 02:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I like this picture for the article. What do you think? WHLfan (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Artistically speaking, the lighting's not great. Technically, it's noisy - presumably due to the shadows having been lifted due to the backlighting and the thumbnail looks oversharpened. Mfield (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I perfer this new one (to the right). Can we vote between this and the present image (image 2)? --Jleon (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

he won

i wanted to say he won but it was blocked so i couldnt oh well... Binglebongle2000 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (Then again, I can't see how anyone could feasibly disagree that Obama won.) Why fully protect it? Why not semi-protect it, or, if it's at that high of risk, protect it from accounts newer than, say, 6 months or a year? Particularly, it's no longer the featured article, and it's not cool to protect it when there will be people wanting to update it the instant that Obama wins. -- Javawizard (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because past experience on Wikipedia is that when power changes hands in elections we get edit wars on every conceivable related article (outgoing, incoming, position, election, country, worldwide list of heads etc...) between people who want to immediately list the newly elected person before they've taken office and those who want the articles to be accurate. And no amount of explanatory messages on talkpages has had any effect. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's over. He won. Let the conflicting edit wars begin!  Esper  ^rant  04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He may have won but he hasn't taken office yet and won't for over two months. We went through all this chaos with the Australian election last year (and many others) and that only had about 8 days between election and changeover. Let's not have it again. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

people please, u can have your edit war when he's elected, till than, just argue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.3.10 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please take a deep breath

The article looks pretty good right now, so if we can just keep the vandals (and partisans) out of the editing business for a bit, we might just make it through the evening :) Please remember our civility pledge. Thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone has left 3 racist statements, using the N-word, on the Contents outline. I know we can collapse the outline, but the language should be removed. It's annoying that most of us cannot made edits, but some moron is able to insert these offensive words. Thanks. Not signed in, but not a jerk, either.

Senate seat

Will he be required to resign his seat in senate? I saw in Kennedy's article that he was in senate until december before he ascended to become president. I also heard Biden will resign his seat. Is this voluntary or compulsory for president/vice president elect? Maybe adding this to the article would help. w_tanoto (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Normal convention is that if he wishes to be inaugurated as president, which he most certainly will want to do, he must resign his senate seat between now and January 20. Illinois state law determines how his seat is filled. Same is true for Biden. Newguy34 (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's compulsory that they can't hold the Senate seats in office, but there's no requirement to resign before then - there isn't really a legal office of "president-elect". (Of course they don't just sit around twiddling their thumbs until January 20th - they have a lot to do in the transitional period that will consume time.) If Biden hadn't contested his seat this year (or if he'd lost it) then he could have just stayed in the Senate until his current term expires on January 3rd and the new elected Senator would take over. Obama's term doesn't expire until 2011 so he will have to resign it. One factor in the timing may relate to who picks their successors. In most states the governor appoints a new Senator until a by-election can be held at the time of the next regular statewide election, but in a few I think the legislature has the power. With a lot of offices changing hands in the next couple of months (and I'm not sure if this affects Illinois or Delaware) then there may be a tactical decision on the timing to ensure the right person(s) select the successor. Equally Senate seniority is determined by the order in which Senators entered, so early resignations would give their appointed successors a head start. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

there isn't really a legal office of "president-elect". Yes, there is: see the 20th amendment. -- Zsero (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That uses the phrase but the use and capitalisation reads as a description to provide clarity when referring to a period that covers more than one President (and, crucially, more than one Veep who might act until there is a President available) than an actual legal office with responsibilities, restrictions etc... And crucially the phrase is only actually used when referring to the President elect (and Veep elect) at the point when they (should) actually take office as President. Timrollpickering (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This Time article [5] indicates that there is flexibility as to when Obama might be replaced, and the timing would be politically driven. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Seniority" has governed such issues in the past. By resigning even one day early, his successor gets ahead of all the other new Senators. In each case, the replacement would only serve two years until a successor is named in 2010 elections. (I checked RollCall). Collect (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate

• When and how will he leave his senator mandate. Does he have to resign ? How will is replacement be designated ? Is it on January 20 or before ? Hektor (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the governor will appoint an interim replacement. Not sure when he officially leaves office as Senator, though. --GoodDamon 14:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

See United States Senate#Vacancies. Same applies to Biden. Gimmetrow 14:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So, who's gonna take over being Senator of Illinois?

Will there be an election for that or some other method? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There will be a special election. For older examples, see List of special elections to the United States Senate. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Governor Blagojevich would be appointing our next Senator. Illinois2011 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Adding a ref to that fact in the main article? VictorC (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That is my understanding also. There is even speculation that he might appoint himself to the Senate and resign his job as Governor, since he'll probably be defeated in the upcoming Governor election. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that even legal? It seems odd. But if it is, it would be a fascinating addition. If it could be properly referenced, "Gov B is legally responsible for appointing a replacement for Sen O's spot. It is legally possible for him to appoint himself." VictorC (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's legal or not. It would depend on the Illinois laws. However, until Obama is inaugurated, he could presumably retain his Senate seat, along with Biden, especially if a lame-duck session is called. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is legal in the state of Illinois, but highly unethical and unlikely. There is a lot of talk why Governor Palin can't appoint herself to Sen Stevens' seat once he's kicked out of the senate; It's because Alaska passed the law where Governor can not appoint a Senator, but a special election will be called. This was because a former governor of Alaska appointed his daughter to a vacated Senate seat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Custovic (talk • contribs) 07:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Blagojevich has not shown much inclination to be concerned about ethics. But the Time article (see below) agrees, as do I, that it's unlikely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The wording of this Time article [6] suggests that it would indeed be legal. Getting away with it might be another story. And Blagojevich has potential to be yet another Illinois Governor who ends up in the slammer, which might put a crimp in his career aspirations, but we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's rather more likely that Blagojevich will resign as Governor, and that Pat Quinn will take the office and appoint Blagojevich as Senator. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 09:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Full name in infobox

Most of the infoboxes for other recent presidents all include the full complete name of the person not just First + Last name. Examples include:

• Dwight David Eisenhower
• John Fitzgerald Kennedy
• Richard Milhous Nixon
• Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr.
• James Earl Carter Jr.
• Ronald Wilson Reagan
• George Herbert Walker Bush
• William Jefferson Clinton
• George Walker Bush.

This is the way it is done and why must we make an exception for Obama? We only go by the facts and it is what it is. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most infoboxes use the 'commonly called' name, and the complete name is at the beginning of the article. I see no reason why presidents should be treated differently. jftr, Eisenhower's infobox was changed 12:02, 26 November 2006 by Bart Versieck and was marked as a 'minor edit'. Doesn't look to me like a the way it is done thing at all. (I prefer Dwight D. Eisenhower, myself.) Flatterworld (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dwight D. Eisenhower would be the most obvious to use. Most Presidents go by their formal names including just a middle initial, not the full middle name. Some, like Carter and Clinton, go by their nicknames. Generally, the only time you hear their full names spoken out loud is when they get inaugurated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

FDR and LBJ are other exceptions. It doesn't really make sense to have the full name in the infobox when it's already in the article. And it's too late to try to make some point about Obama's middle name being a common Islamic name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflict)1. This has been discussed here countless times. See FAQ and archives. Consensus was to use his common name in the infobox.

2. There is no official Wikipedia policy for using the full name of the president in the infobox. Note that as of 19:30 on November 5 (I'm stating the time in case someone makes changes), the following presidents follow the format of this page, which is to use the common name and not the birth name: Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley. I'm sure there are more, but I'm not going to waste my time on finding them. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson only have the middle initial where the guy had a middle name. Also Grover Cleveland, who went by his middle name. See List of Presidents of the United States for a quick cross-reference. There is obviously no set-in-stone standard. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Having noticed the above remark. I have corrected the problem and FDR and LBJ's middle names are now up in fullEricl (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Those weren't problems, and there was certainly no call for you to jump in and fix them just to manufacture some sort of proof or fake precedent. Flatterworld (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Let's use his full name and ignore other articles. Everyme 19:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous consensus, argued many times in the archives, is to use the common name in the infobox. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous consensus was based on right wing attacks. Currently, that shouldn't be as much of a problem.LedRush (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous Understanding My A**. Everyme 21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What? SGGH ^speak! 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was (and still is) based on using the name that is most commonly used; is used by Barack Obama himself; and on Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Names, which recommends using the full name in the lead paragraph. ~ priyanath ^talk 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't care what's in the info box (though I do have a strong preference to conformity), but Priyanath's statements seem incorrect to me. Just look at that list above...who called Clinton, "william", nonetheless, "Jefferson"?. Also, where is the policy that says info boxes shouldn't list the full names (it could exist, I really just don't know)?LedRush (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

SGGH, I said let's use his full name and ignore other articles. Everyme 21:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says to go by consensus. For previous discussions here, see Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_37#Full_name_in_lead, Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_29#Middle_name_in_infobox. If you can get consensus here for putting in the full name, then that's fine, but you should notify the other editors who voiced their opinions earlier and give this discussion some time. For the record, I'm opposed to putting the full name in the infobox for the reasons I've explained above. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Putting in the full name here does of course not require the nod of people who have argued against doing so on some other articles. Unless it's such a stable consensus as to be described in policy or the MOS. More importantly, please consider that consensus can change, so arguing on rather weak past consensus holds no water. Everyme 21:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's important to let others voice their thoughts. I'll also be taking a long wikibreak soon and wanted to put my two cents here. Your opinion that consensus is 'nonsense' probably isn't going to get very wide acceptance on Wikipedia. ~ priyanath ^talk 21:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense again. What I (quite obviously) meant was that your line of reasoning was nonsense. And it is. Completely and utterly. Everyme 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If his middle name is Hussein, then we should use it. He ain't Barry DunnhamEricl (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep it civil, Everyme. You might not take comments such as you made as an attack. But there are plenty of people who would. I, for one, agree that it is enough to state the full name at the beginning of the article and use the common name in infobox. Nobody calls him "Barack Hussein Obama". But many people did call Clinton "William Jefferson Clinton". Jrobinjapan (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody calls Jimmy Carter James Earl Jr. His full name is appropriate in the info box. What's the big deal? --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I just made a comment below and saw this. We MUST treat everyone the same. We MUST standardize the presidential articles. While other crap exists, with presidential articles, there is enough input and traffic and we must eliminate all crap and standardize it. I don't vote nickname or full name, just voting that all names must be the same. ImNotObama (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of consistency is one that matters a great deal on Wikipedia. What we put in the infoboxes of our presidents needs to be consistent, and so far it has been. Every president beginning with William Howard Taft uses their full name in the infobox (Harry Truman's middle name is S), so I see that a common trend has already been formed. I participated in a discussion about what call Jimmy Carter in his infobox here; the concensus was to place "James Earl Carter, Jr." in the infobox. Why would Obama be any different? Upon his inauguration, he should not be excluded from this due to consistency reasons. Happyme22 (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Both consistency and compliance are important and full names are not compliant and are inconsistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity. The most recent change(s) were due to citing a temporarily non-compliant template and not due to any change in either consensus or policy. This page should remain compliant. Modocc (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity

Misc. discussions

Closing and consolidating multiple threads, and removing headers to unclutter menu index
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Punctuation of "African American" At present the article has "African American", "African-American" and "African–American". Could we have consistency? Nurg (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC) In my quick hunt through the MOS I see no preferred version. There is a rejected style guide, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigrant ethnic groups), that does not address hyphenation other than to say usages "vary". The Hyphenated American article claims that most style guides recommend dropping the hyphen except when the term is used as an adjective, but it cites only one such guide[7] that does not say this so clearly. At a Q&A page the Chicago Manual of Style recommends against the hyphen entirely.[8] At Talk:African American#hyphen there is no agreement. At Wikipedia talk:African American there is a comment that the matter is ad-hoc here, but consistent within an article. All in all I would vote for changing them all to "African American" without the hyphen. Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I have changed the instance of an en dash to a hyphen. This is not ruling out a further change to a space, but I wanted to at least get rid of the dash. Nurg (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I believe a hyphen is necessary for good grammar. For example, there is a difference in meaning between between "African-American candidate" and "African American-candidate"Gregcaletta (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The grammatically correct way of putting it is African American. It is a simple adjective/noun relationship similar to that of the red ball. The ball is red, the American is African. Should the term be used before a noun, a hyphen is necessary (i.e. the African-American man), but if it's just something like, "I saw an African American at church today," there is no need for a dash or hyphen because it is like saying, "I passed a blue house today." I'll see if I have time to go in and fix. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC) African American is used as both a noun and an adjective several times in this article with no consistent use of hyphen vs. no hyphen. I'm going to be bold and put a hyphen where used as an adjective and remove the hyphen where used as a noun. Please revert/correct if you don't agree. Jrobinjapan (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Is this legit? For some reason, I don't think a consensus has been reached in redirecting ethnic links concerning Obama's race. This kinda smells pooy [9]. I've already revered once, so I won't again lest some editor runs off to AN/I accusing me of edit warring. Any thoughts? DigitalNinja 19:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC) His father is a Luo, so linking to that ethnicity is more specific and improves the article. Four words later, a link to Kenya (which is where Kenyan redirects to) is provided. The original text (that you reverted to) is more specific and informative to the reader. --guyzero | talk 19:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC) No worries. If anyone, it's the other editor that will be awarded the "Order of the Boot". Regards SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC) My interpretation is this: if the person has readily identifiable and well known African roots, such as originating in Kenya (or Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Liberia, etc.) and the person is Black, nationality (not race) should be the preferred and more accurate method of scrutiny. Simply being Black is so much less specific. I feel that it's preferable to go with the most specific terminology. So if the person originated (ancestrally) from a tribe geographically from the land of Kenya called "Luo," it's by far a more informative way to label the entry in the article. I will update it to that effect if there are no objections. VictorC (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) Absolutely correct, and that's the way it was before these edits. There's no need for it to be consistent with "white American" on his mother's side. --GoodDamon 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not as comfortable with the term "Black" as it's referring to Obama Sr. who is already from Africa as it is. I suggest we replace it simply with "Luo," if there aren't any objections. Additionally I get the feeling it clouds the issue, and hints that Obama Sr. is "Black American." For those who consider it pertinent, the context is abundantly sufficient to make matters (of race) obviously clear, (just by reading on through the rest of the article). VictorC (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Already done. That's the way it was before that spate of edits, and that's the way it should be. --GoodDamon 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) According to the official US Census, he is NOT "African-American", but multi-racial. Calling him "African-American" is a decidedly political move, and distorts his heritage [10]. Let's leave politics out of this, and stick to facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 52pickup52 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Ugh. This is why I'm a deletionist. DigitalNinja 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Though the edit-warring user has been blocked, I will add to the consensus that the wiki-link to Luo is more precise & more informative than the link to Black. - DigitalC (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC) African American Obama is not an African American. he is not a negro. his background is Kenyan, so it should say Kenyan American, not African American. Kenya is in Africa, because Africa is a continent, but America is not a continent, so for the sake of consistency and logic if one were to persist with using the word African, it would be African-North American. Otherwise Kenyan American us the correct term. I doubt this will get changed though, people in the US just assume that if you're black you're a negro and an African American. You can call a spade anything you want, it is still a spade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.117.97 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Last time I checked, Kenya is in Africa. And by the way, "spade" is nearly as offensive as the N-word. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) That's an interesting point; is there any precedence for this though (either IRL or on Wikipedia)? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC) In my quick hunt through the MOS I see no preferred version. There is a rejected style guide, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigrant ethnic groups), that does not address hyphenation other than to say usages "vary". The Hyphenated American article claims that most style guides recommend dropping the hyphen except when the term is used as an adjective, but it cites only one such guide[11] that does not say this so clearly. At a Q&A page the Chicago Manual of Style recommends against the hyphen entirely.[12] At Talk:African American#hyphen there is no agreement. At Wikipedia talk:African American there is a comment that the matter is ad-hoc here, but consistent within an article. All in all I would vote for changing them all to "African American" without the hyphen. Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I (and the IP) was referring to the idea of specifying the ancestry of "Kenyan" as opposed to just "African". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC) On the surface your request makes sense, but that catagory only applies to persons born in various countries. African American is justified in this case since Obama was born in the U.S. and not Kenya.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I've stricken my earlier answer. It was intended for the section on hyphenation. Regarding the racial designation, please see FAQ #2 (expand the FAQ at the top of this page). This issue has been discussed repeatedly, and there is strong long-term consensus for calling Obama African-American as a primary ethnic designation, then describing his background in more detail (as has been done) in the article. It is a combination of his self-identification and the overwhelming weight of reliable sources. Although there is a lot of history, politics, and arbitrariness in the words used to describe race, ethnicity, nationality, ancestry, etc., Wikipedia's choice is to follow the most universal reasonable standards rather than to be at the forefront of changing language. Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Cf. European-American or Asian-American. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Maybe one day we won't even have this discussion. I don't see in the John McCain article where we spend one kb of effort to describe him as Irish American (although I do note something in one of the article's category). I don't care that Obama is anything, I care only about what he may or may not do for this country. But, I'm like standing against a tsunami here, so I just think this discussion is queerly (meant as strange not a gay pejorative) American. Sigh. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC) It was a valid question and perhaps the person asking was just needing a clarification. If a person is born in Kenya, then he is Kenyan-American, but if he is born in the US, then he is an American. African-American is used to clarify race, since using the term black is no longer politically correct.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC) It's a legitimate question for sure, and an important one to boot. Just one that has been asked and answered many times on this page, so it's helpful to point people to the relevant discussion so we don't start from scratch each time. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC) You mean one of the 39 index archives, that are near impossible to navigate?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Please see the FAQ question 2. Brothejr (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I know that this subject was discussed "ad nauseam" but I can't help noticing that calling Obama an "African American", in spite of his mixed European and African roots, is analogous to applying infamous Nuremberg Laws to people of mixed Jewish and Aryan descent. Somehow it implies that "bad" African blood prevails over his "good" white half.Tsf (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC) It's what the reliable sources call him, ja? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Black? Excuse me for asking a simple question, but if his mother was white, how and why would we label him as 'black?' This is a classic example of a half-truth. --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, this is a classic example of half-wit. Please refer to Q2 of the FAQ section (as suggested by the previous comment that you somehow missed) at the top of this page, or the millions of words on the subject in the archive of this talk page.. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, this is a classic example of half-wit. You are not trying to insult me are you ? --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC) I was paraphrasing you, for which you should be mildly flattered. Seriously though, what is the point of having FAQs, and archive and search facilities if people don't use them. This issue has been address literally dozens and dozens of times. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC) While this is, of course, another junk thread, it is hilarious to me that there are people who would argue with a straight face that a man with an African father and an American mother would not be "African-American". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Yeh, it's a junk thread, in large part because the IP address who posted it did so in order to slip in a racist joke about "spade". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC) African-American, American, or Mullato Mr. Obama was born in the United States, making him an AMERICAN. He does have ancestral ties to Africa, but, it is my opinion that an African-American is an individual born in Africa, whom has become an American Citizen. To be absolutely truthful, Mr. Obama is of "white" (caucasian) and black decent. Correct mention as to the making of history should not claim "the first African-American (or Black individual)". He is a mixture of Black and White.208.253.77.66 (talk)DMC —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC). Please read the FAQ above. This is a frequent question, and the answers are available there. In a nutshell: Obama refers to himself as an "African-American" and the mainstream media by and large refers to him the same way. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable sources on the matter. --GoodDamon 19:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC) He refers to himself as a school? To the top of this topic. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, there are a LOT of people that refer to themselves as African-American because hundreds of years ago someone's ancestor may have been from Africa. Now it is use either because "black" is offensive to someone or because the person can qualify themselves as being better than people calling themselves American.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk • contribs) Note that this is not a discussion forum. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC) What if Britney Spears called herself African-American? --71.225.111.4 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC) What is important is what term the sources use. Anyone proposing a change in the terminology used in the article should provide some sources using the proposed terms. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC) It is important to note that Obama is also of Irish descent. I am Irish and live very close to the town where his ancestors are from. Do you suggest that we call him an African-Irish-American and whatever other countries he has descendents from. We must refer to Senator Obama by whatever he would like to be referred to by, thus, we must refer to him as an African-American. Bonzostar (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Well, there is that, and the fact that many other sources call him 'African-American'. Personally I think it would be more accurate to call him 'Kenyan-Irish-American', but who am I to slap terms on people, as I am not a reliable source. It's that simple; the case should be closed.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC) first african-american the article says he's the first african-american to be nominated for president, should be changed to first african-american to be elected president of the united states whenever an admin gets around to it. CNN projects that Sen. Barack Obama has won election as the next president of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rch2005 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Yes we know. We might want to wait until it is verified that the ballot was valid (as it obviously was) before posting. However, if you want an admin to add it in now, go ahead.WikiReverter How am I doing? 04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC) He is not the first african american president, he is the first one to win a presidential election, as he hasnt served as president yet. And the source cited doesnt say that he is the first president, rather the first nominee, can somebody change this language? Nableezy (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Hence making him the first African-American Presidential-elect of the United States of America. Upon his swearing in on the 20th of January, 2009, he will be the first African-American President of the United States of America and the 44th President of the United States of America. He is also the first African American to win the nomination of a major party. This is simply the fact of the situation. Wording, however, must be done carely as to not incur any mistakes. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 04:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I have updated his BLP. Technically speaking, as of today he is the presumptive president-elect, not yet the president, nor even the president-elect. Anyone remember the U.S. Constitution and it's requirements that the Electoral College vote in Washinton, D.C. in the first week of December to officially make him the president-elect? Newguy34 (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC) To satisfy that objection, I would say that while he is only the presumptive president-elect with reference to the electoral college (because in theory the electoral college could vote otherwise), he is the president-elect with reference to the election of the electors, who are usually party operatives and have traditionally voted the same way as the state voted. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I agree. For all intents and purposes, though, I think it is safe to refer to him as the "president-elect". Newguy34 (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Isn't he only half black? RealKG1990 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, however, taxonomy standards have us refer to him as African-American rather than being African-American / Anglo-Saxon. I personally find taxonomy to be annoying and another form of division but that's besides the point. Barack Obama's heritage is described as being of African-American descent, therefore he is the first African-American presidential-elect of the USA. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 05:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Hugo Chavez is of African descent (partially). Certainly there have been others as well of partial African ancestry. Anyways, the answer is that he is not the first such to be elected. I will have to agree with Evilgohan2 to call Barak Obama only an African American is politically incorrect and does nothing but support the negative affects of the One Drop Rule which has affected most people of African American descent at one level or another. This is the 21st centuary and because Barak has some brown in his complexion people only want to call him black. It needs to end. I'm a very proud American that voted for Barak but I completely disagree with him being called only African American it's misleading and biased.Mcelite (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) His Father is from Kenya. His mother is American. Barack Obama is undeniably African-American. This title is not a reflection of his skin color. --Trefalcon (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC) His mother isn't African American she Caucasian American his father is Kenyan. Therefore his bloodline consists of two different races. So it so freakin simple that it's biased that his African heritage would override his European bloodline. Neither is more important than the other. Like I said this is a classic example of the One Drop Rule at work. Even I will say it was smart for him to campaign as an African American rather than bi-racial which he is.Mcelite (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Person of African Descent I don't think this is an appropriate term, since all humans are of African descent. He shoud be called the first African American elected President. Cadwaladr (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Your first sentence is silly, it's like saying we're all related because we all descended from Adam and Eve. However, the lead kind of restates itself, so there is some redundancy that could be trimmed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I don't happen to believe in Adam and Eve; I share the opinion of most biologists that humans evolved on the African continent. Cadwaladr (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The phrase is awkward and not commonly used (as opposed to African American). I tried a re-word [13] .. cheers, --guyzero | talk 08:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Your comparison is silly because Cadwaladr's point is based on reality, while yours is based on fiction.--Svetovid (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC) African-American Objectively speaking, Obama is of mixed race. I realize that people of mixed race are often / commonly identified as "black" and hence "AA" in the USA. I don't have a problem with the article pointing this out, and quoting some reference showing that Obama self-identifies as AA. The objective statement will still be that he is the first president of mixed race, while any identification of Obama as "AA" will need some qualification and reference. I am sure we can do this. I am not saying he "isn't" AA, I am just calling for a properly referenced statement. I have also been told that, not surprisingly, this has come up before. Well, if ithas, the thnig to do would be to put the best reference that came up into the article. If the point remains completely unreferenced, it will just come up again and again. --dab (𒁳) 08:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC) This might help you understand why the designation African-American is appropriate for Obama. There is a paragraph on him that has three citations as to why this is so. Plus, it's also a matter of self-identification. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC) You are implying that I do not understand the issue. I do, and I have looked at the African-American article. But even if I was completely clueles, this wouldn't make go away the fact that the article lacks a proper reference caregorizing Obama as "AA". So you think this is self-evident to anyone at all familiar with US society? The very paragraph you just pointed me to has In the 1980s, parents of mixed-race children began to organize and lobby for the addition of a more inclusive term of racial designation that would reflect the heritage of their children. This means that, yes, in the 19th century, and even before 1960, Obama would doubtlessly have been considered black. But this is 2008. Try using google. here is a time.com article that makes clear that Obama's race is a matter of debate, and less than obvious. "Black, in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves," wrote Debra Dickerson on the liberal website Salon. -- meaning that it doesn't apply to Obama, who isn't descended from West African slaves, at all "If I'm outside your building trying to catch a cab," [Obama] told Charlie Rose, "they're not saying, 'Oh, there's a mixed race guy.'" -- implying that this would be the correct description, but lingering race prejudice rooted in the "one-drop rule" in the popular mind makes "black" anyone who isn't pale pink. The official US statistics (as of 2006) has Black or African American: 12.4% Two or more races: 2.0% Obama is clearly a member of the 2% multiracial US Americans, and thus not of a member of the 13.4% black US Americans. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I have inserted the missing references myself now. As far as I am concerned, this resolves the issue. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Excellent; case closed. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Can we agree that he is not of "Afrcan-American descent"? This keeps showing up in the article, and is clearly misuse of the term African-American, as none of his parents, grandparents, etc were African-American. I searched through the archives, but I couldn't find this issue mentioned.Austin512 (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, I wish I'd caught this earlier. This is a perennial topic here, but we must adhere to WP:BLP, which requires us to use only reliable sources. And the reliable sources almost all refer to Barack Obama as "African-American." The exceptions are articles specifically detailing his lineage, some of which are used as reliable sources lower on the page, where we detail his lineage. It's not up to us to calculate this or that percentage of Obama's African and non-African ancestry. To do so is original research, a big no-no. We simply reiterate what the reliable sources say. --GoodDamon 14:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC) All good points, Good. If the United States Senate considers him African American, that's good enough for me. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I understand that USA citizen have a slightly other understanding about "races" than in Europe. The word "race" is not used in my country (about persons), but I have problem to understand how a son of a white women can be "non-white". Wikipedia should be universal, and therefore the "race issue" should be omitted. I think that would be the smartest for everybody and a step forward. Jakro64 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Non-White Vs Black Hiya all, I don't want to get caught up in any controversy, and I know feelings are running high at the moment, I just thought I might throw my 2 cents in as it were. Recently an editor changed the opening para from "Obama is the first non white American politician to be elected President of the United States" to "Obama is the first black American politician to be elected President of the United States". It's an understandable change, but I just thought there's another side to it. By changing the word to black, the sentence is about Obama. Originally (ie. non white) the sentence is about the history of the presidency. Obama is indeed the first black elected president, but more than that he is also the first non white. Non white covers all other races (Oriental, Indian, Latino etc...), as it makes clear that there were no other non whites in office before Obama. Black only seperates... well, blacks from the history of the presidency. I don't wish to get caught in any racism controversy, and I apologise if any terms I've used are non pc (I appreciate most users on this page might be American whilst I'm from the 51st state, and terminology might be a little different), it just seemed to me that in this instance 'non white' was more descriptive because of the history of the presidency. It does state that Obama is African American in the next line, so it shouldn't cause any confusion. Unless of course there has been another non white president but I didn't believe there was... but I am British! Congratulations on a brilliant article and on the election, regards Psychostevouk (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Agreed. The old language said both, but non-white should be used to mark the historic nature of his win, and black (african american) should be used to narrow in on his precise background.LedRush (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The article subject is Barack Obama, not the history of the U.S. Presidency. I realize that technically he is the first non-white president-elect, but we aren't here to make the point about this fact, we are here to retell the information as the vast amount of reliable sourcing presents it, which is that he is black or African American. Stating that he is non-white before stating that he is black is systemic bias, and to be avoided. It would be the same bias if Obama was female, and we wrote "first non-male to be elected". --guyzero | talk 23:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC) To be clear, if it is important to make this point in the lead, then rework the para to add it after we've identified that he is black/African American. Our first identification of his race should not be "non-white". --guyzero | talk 23:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure why you think it is biased to say he's the first non-white elected president. Also, the fact that he is the first non-white makes his (that's Obama, btw) accomplishment more special than saying the first black. Because this article is about Obama, and because the fact is true (verifiable, reliable sources, etc), and because this in no way takes away from people's knowledge of him as an african american (or that the fact is stated clearly everywhere in the article), the existing language should remain.LedRush (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC) I changed the order to make "african american" come first, and "non-white" second. If that really was your only objection, though, you should have done it yourself rather than blindly reverting. Hopefully this compromise is good for all.LedRush (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Guyzero didn't say it's 'biased', sheesh. Learn the difference between that and 'systemic bias'. "First African American" or "First black" is what is being given notability by mainstream sources. In terms of Ghits in 'News', *"first non white" president* gets 52, and *"First African American" president* gets 10,146. *"First black" president* gets 34,133. We should reflect mainstream reliable sources, rather than making it up. ~ priyanath talk 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Not sure I follow any of your arguments above where the substituting "African American" with "non-white" is not systemic bias. The notion you present that he is the first non-white president-elect which somehow makes his accomplishment "more special than saying the first black" is your POV. --guyzero | talk 23:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Guyzero did say it was biased...read his edit comments. I don't understand the "making it up" argument, especially seeing as you concede that there is proof of it. I also don't understand the POV argument...we are presenting facts here, people.LedRush (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC) My two cents on ethnicity Now that I've consolidated all of the current (and recently archived) discussions of race and ethnicity in one place I have a few observations: It is probably worth mentioning somewhere in the lead that Obama is the first African American president-elect of the US (or whatever you would call it - see that discussion, and ultimately, the first AA president) However, as his administration progresses, his stature will rise in other ways and people will grow less and less aware of his race. Therefore, I think we should downplay it and conceivably take it out of the first or second sentence of the article. His main notability is that he is the 44th POTUS, not that he is the first African-American POTUS. Almost certainly this will be borne out by the weight of coverage in reliable sources. For every article that refers to him as an AA president, there will be many that simply call him the president. In the path to presidency, he was also the first AA in many other positions - first major party nominee, first EIC of Harvard Law journal, and as president he will be the first in other ways (first leader of african descent to head a white-majority nation, first African American leader to dine in the Kremlin's tea room, etc). Unless we want this to read like trivia we should limit this to the one or two most important firsts and not fill the article up with an account at how he is the first at everything. Likewise, Obama is also mixed race, son of an immigrant, grew up overseas, etc. In each of these respects he is a groundbreaker and first. But also, to avoid this becoming a catalog of racial/ethnic traits, and trivia about each that overshadows the simple fact he is President, we should carefully limit the extent, and consider demoting much of this material to the body of the article or to various child articles. Finally, we refer to Obama's race primarily as "African American". That's not negotiable, and it is inconceivable that any consensus would change. See the FAQ and the talk page archives for the reasoning and the indication of consensus. Why is that non-negotiable? It's INCORRECT. According to official records, he is "multi-racial". Regardless of political rhetoric, he is NOT African-American. Calling oneself so does not make it that way. OFFICIALLY, according to the census, he is multi-racial. Leave personal prejudices outside the article, and make it correct. 52pickup52 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC) And after this, somebody added to the lead that he was the first nominee and president-elect from Hawaii. Hmmm. We have 50 states and 44 presidents. That should be cleaned up too. Wikidemon (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) My two cents (on ethnicity) is that Obama is the embodiment of the 1963 dream spoken of by his forebear, the martyred Martin Luther King. VictorC (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Indeed. Countering some of the presumed racism that helped keep some of the red states red, there were exit polls showing that some 30 percent of whites who voted for him said that race was a consideration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, Obama is not an "African American" at all. The term "African American" is used by a community of people in the United States - specifically those who are decendent of African slaves. They use the term "African American" rather than a "specific country American" because since they are decendents of slaves, they do not know exactly what country in Africa they are decendant from. For example, someone from Italy would say they are Italian, someone from Kenya would say they are Kenyan, but a person decendant from slaves would say African American. So, simply put, Obama can call himself "American" or "Kenyan" or "Kenyan American" but not African American. To make this even easier, if a person from Nigeria moves to the United States - that person would not call themselves "African American" - they would call themselves either "Nigerian" or "Nigerian American". Not all people of color in the United States are African American.71.183.194.112 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)AR "was the first non-white to be nominated for President" - WHAT? Obama's mother is white. He is AS MUCH white as he is black. "First African American" is the way to say it. Presumably we're not counting Harding, the alleged octaroon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Obama was neither the first non-caucasian or the first African American to be nominted for US President. Let's not forgot the third parties, folks. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC) It says from a major political party. I think it is important to say "non-white" somewhere because it is both factually accurate (and sourceable) and better describes the measure of his accomplishment.LedRush (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) What reliable source is calling him "non-white"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC) First of all the terms Black and White are slang terms, and could be offensive. Second of all, I bet you somwhere in a previous presidents bloodline they have a native american ancestor. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Warren G. Harding, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC) The statement's completely wrong. I believe Eldridge Cleaver came first in 1968 as a non-white US presidential nominee. VictorC (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Update: Clifton DeBerry came before Eldridge, in 1964. He was the first African American candidate for President of any existing party. VictorC (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) First black candidate for a MAJOR party, y'all. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC) There's no such thing as black or white skin. It's brown or beige. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Yeah right. Have you seen people living in Africa or people living in Greenland. Those people are black and white.162.99.227.208 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Common usage is otherwise. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Is this when I'm supposed to update the George Washington article to describe him as the first white President of British and German descent? Flatterworld (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Obama's nationality He is of African American decent/ he is half white, if we are going to do this page correct that needs to stop being changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.145.100 (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC) The sources call him African American, and that's what counts in the summary. The details of his mixed-race background are well-covered in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 69.134.20.90 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC) the man is not black or white he is mulatto.. look it up in wiki.. anybody with less than 75 percent of one race is considered mulatto so he should be listed as such or change the other articles in wiki http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mulatto .... if you just count his skin color that wouldnt be fair to the people who raised him which made him the man he is today and why would anybody want to take away his heritage ..he never know his black father until he was older and that was only a short visit he got his background from indonesia where he attended school til he was 13 and from his totally white grandmother after he returned to hawaii.. african american is not accurate Reliable sources are what matter, not wikipedians' definitions of what they think is "true". The sources say African American, so that's what it is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 69.134.20.90 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC) so being accurate is less important than displeasing the few who are trying to make a big deal out of it..he has alot of kin folks in kansas that don t like being left out because he was born darker than they were..i dont see the point in neglecting his whole family that raised him just to make a historic thing out of something ...at least be accurate and state that he is bi-racial if the other names not good enough he isnt the first african american president ..he is the first bi-racial president ...it still makes history so everyone should be happy unless they just want to make a african american thing out of it African-American? Why is Barack Obama described as African-American in this article and practically everywhere else when he actually is biracial? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC) See FAQ, at top of discussion page. This question has been asked numerious times before. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

African-American - is there a valid source for this?

Yes, there is a valid source. Read the article. Every newspaper in the world calls him "African-American". And please, read the FAQ.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obama is routinely describled as "African-American" in the article, but is there actually any valid source for this, or a self-identification as such by Barack? His mother, I believe, is white and his father is Kenyan. Wouldn't that make him multi-racial? And thus, the first "Multi-Racial" President, apposed to African-American? I'm not American, and I fully supported Barack, I just simply don't see the legitimacy in calling him "African-American" when he really isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.37.78 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) These are all great points! Please change this article following everyone's advice immediately before more people are influenced by this incorrect statment. In a moderate way I would say that you can legitimately call Barak Obama "An american of african descent" because his father was, as stated in the article, from Kenya. However, he himself is bi-racial. This IS an encyclopedia, and if you will make reference to his heritage, it should be stated clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.128.87.3 (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC) if we can call obama afican american why not mariah carey WHO IS THE SAME MIXED RACE AS HE IS HER DAD IS BLACK NON AMERICAN its really really really racist agianst bi-racial people can wikipedia stop feeding the false info to already ignorant people, people actually read wikipedia for infor belive it or not and THIS IS WHY SO MANY PEOPLE CALL HIM BLACK cause people are idiots its adds to there ignorance if you don't change it people will still keep saying it cause its written ON WIKIPEDIA it makes other mixed people belivie they don't have a group to add them selfs to its already like this on myspace/facebook AND SO MANY PLACES AND ITS WRONG, it making his own mother and grandmother/grandfather who spent most of their life looking after him and watching him grow up not count as anything, his grandmother sadly died a couple of days before he was elected and at least in her respect note her and that side of his family who actually made him who he is today not his dad who wasn't there. Its not like this makes him anyless better you can't say whos gonna run amercia just cause of there skin or its simpler to yours they have to be good at there job (sarah plain springs to mind)and he is, so he doesn't need to use his colour to gain votes most that voted for him was white or of white descent.Veggiegirl (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The proper term should be Mulatto. It's definition does mean parents of black and white races. Calling him "African-American" would mean he immigrated to the US from Africa. Just because the biased and wrong media prints it, does not make it true or accurate. Someone immigrating from Egypt would be "African-American" also! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentc (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about being "first"

redundant discussion about race
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My "race shouldn't matter"-meter is demanding that not only should he be listed as the first African-American president, but as the eleventh Irish-American president. As a fellow biracial American, surely he would understand the general attitude that both sides of the family makes a contribution to a person... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.26.82 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Is Obama the first democratically elected national leader of African (i.e. black, please excuse my political incorrectness) descent in the history of western civilization beginning with ancient Greece and Rome? Thank you.--wooddoo ]] [[User_talk:Wooddoo-eng|Eppur si muove (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Seems so. Gaston Monnerville was a heartbeat away from being President of France during his eight year tenure as President of the French Senate (President of Senate becomes interim President according to the Constitution), but that the closest thing I can think of. Hektor (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC) That claim was made on MSNBC and CNN last night (I say without references). With a reference, that deserves mention in the article.LedRush (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC) This is very hard to make any definitive statement on. In a lot of countries no-one applies a "one drop and you are it" rule of ancestry (for example the British actor Peter Davison has said in interviews that one of his grandfathers was black, but I've never seen Davison himself considered as anything other than white) and it's hard to check every single elected leader's ancestry. But also what defines "western civilisation"? The modern state of South Africa was a European creation, for a long time often mentioned in the same breath as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC) It's hard to cite the absence of something. But in any case, it's easy to see that Nelson Mandela's election was major, and significant. Additionally, though Obama had to overcome many obstacles to his successful candidacy, no one will try to argue that Mandela had an easier time getting elected than Obama. Thirty years as a political prisoner is a big obstacle. I think we might well say that Obama is at least the second African leader of a nuclear power (Mandela preceding him) but again to cite the absence of something (in this case the absence of African presidents) isn't really feasible. Can anyone suggest how to cite that something has never happened? VictorC (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC) What about Jean-Bertrand Aristide and René Garcia Préval in Haiti, is there a valid reason to consider that they do not meet the definition? And there might be others in other caribbean or central american countries. Hugo cantu (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC) There is Michaëlle Jean but she was not elected... ; but if the statement comes back to ancient Rome, I would be extremely surprised if there was no Roman emperor with African ancestry. Hektor (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC) This article cites him as "arguably the first black leader of any white-majority nation in recorded history." The Christian Science Monitor is a pretty reliable source. Important to add.--Gloriamarie (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Michaëlle Jean is proof that such an assertion is not true. -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Jean is neither elected nor a leader in any real sense of the word. Also, if reliable, verifiable sources say it, we can include it.LedRush (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The article said "arguably the first black leader of any white-majority nation in recorded history." Note the abscence of the term elected. And Jean is a leader of a country, she carries out all the functions of the head of state. I challenge you to provide a second source for your claim. --MichiganCharms (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC) The head of government not the head of state is really the leader in the Westminster system. The Governor General is just a figurehead. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC) It doesn't matter, the source has been challenged and it's up to you to provide another. --MichiganCharms (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC) See Hugo Chavez and there's your answer.XJeanLuc (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC) The quote is "leader of any white-majortiy." By standard racial profiling, "Latino" or similar categories are presented separatly from "Caucasian". Which means that Venezuala doesn't count as white-majority and Hugo Chavez doesn't qualify for this defintion. This also includes Haiti, etc.211.128.87.3 (talk) 10:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)nishanoire

Black

redundant discusion about race
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Surely it is incorrect to describe him as black, rather than mixed race? If you call him black that negates half of his heritage, his white family. If you call him African-American you could argue that acknowledges his African heritage and his American heritage, but that is not the usual use of the term - it is (in my understanding) a term that relates to black people, and he doesn't have the classic African-American background (eg families who have historically been in the US for many years, usually as a direct result of slavery). If you call him mixed race that acknowledges exactly what he is, half white and half black, without negating either side or giving any one side undue prominence. 86.147.160.133 (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC) On this same subject: an interesting essay on Barack Obama by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown here 86.147.160.133 (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you for addressing this as I'm so surprised how inaccurate everyone is being in calling him the first African-American. He is bi-racial, even humorously referring to himself in his first press conference as a "mutt" so he is not simply African-American. As I said below, especially since this is a historical occurrence, it should be recorded accurately according to anthropological science. (nyclovesme) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyclovesme (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC) It's really a shame when a person who's very simply half white & half-black has to CHOOSE to ally themselves with one side or the other, like it's some military battle; in the US you can't just say, "I'm a mixture" or "I'm half white, half black"---actually the result almost always seems to be that "they're black" -- even the Black Community seems to push for this. This will never end until there is more real cross-community contact, intermarriage, etc. It's so sad.....of course there's a lot of Blacks & Whites living nearby each other in some southern states, and in large cities, but definitely keeping to themselves. - I admire what Bob Marley, the Jamaican singer once said: (quote follows from Wikipedia) "Marley suffered racial prejudice as a youth, because of his mixed racial origins and faced questions about his own racial identity throughout his life. He once reflected: I don't have prejudice against meself. My father was a white and my mother was black. Them call me half-caste or whatever. Me don't dip on nobody's side. Me don't dip on the black man's side nor the white man's side. Me dip on God's side, the one who create me and cause me to come from black and white." But for a mixed-race person who wants to "get ahead" in the US, you can't talk like that. Marley was of course a Rastafarian, pot-smoker -- he didn't CARE what other people thought about him. Years ago a friend, a light-skinned "Black" doctor told me: in America, if you want to "be somebody", you have to take sides. Obama certainly did, changing from Barry back to Barak, marrying Black, and going for years to that racist black church -- it was a big mistake for him not to distance himself from that church earlier. We don't see this insistence on "taking sides" for someone like Keanu Reeves, it is only when Black and White are involved. This is our country's continuing shame and tragedy.Jakob37 (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC) If you saw Obama walikng down the street and he was not famous Jakiob3, you would regard hiom as black at first sight. You would not wonder about his genetic makup in that case, why worry about it now ? Cosand (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC) At the risk of misinterpreting the eccentric writing-style of "Cosand",I ain't worryin' bout nobody's makeup --- and I guess I would think "mixed" if gazing on our next Prez for the first time. Actually, this whole issue of, "Hey, he's not Black, he's mulatto" (is that term politically incorrect now ??) applies not just to Obama, but to millions of "Black Americans". To take it a step further, every single human on this planet is "mixed" -- but we just love to set ourselves up in groups, one against the other. I saw some program on Discovery channel which showed that some woman in Greece shared the same rare genetic marker seen in some guy in an Amerindian tribe ---they must've had some common ancestor (Central Asia?) maybe 50,000 years ago. Now that's interesting to me, not all this very very predictable political yammering.Jakob37 (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

African American 2

The lead sentence describes Obama as the first African American president of the US. I think this is a little bit misleading because Obama is really mixed race, half African and half Caucasian which I believe is called Mulatto. NancyHeise ^talk 19:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many times (including just a couple of sections above). Please refer to the extensive talk page archive if you wish to see why this article says what it says. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to muck anything up, I am not involved in this article my comment was a drive by message - feel free to ignore it. NancyHeise ^talk 19:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We will. While he is technically a mulatto a lot of people find that word offensive, especially in countries like the US. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That term is right up there with terms like Negro, colored, pickaninny, or jungle bunny. It may have been acceptable 100 years ago, but not now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

pd repeat 4[rt 50 lf 90] <math>hdfh</math>sfdgStrike-through text

Another discussion about race

To clarify: I don't mind refactoring, but outright removal is not warranted. The question is after all valid why we go with all of the sources that are not trying to be strictly, factually correct but simply join in on the theme, especially when everyone knows that African American is not strictly correct. A gazillion proverbial flies eating muck still doesn't make it caviar. I believe it's disturbing that we bow to and join the tabloid level news chorus when there is the simple and valid option to formulate such not-quite-correct claims as, well, claims. Consider e.g.: "In spite of his mixed heritage, he is generally being called the "first African American U.S. president." -- What's wrong with that, I ask? Why assert the fact and not simply the claim, especially when it's clear that it's incorrect, and it's also clear why the oversimplification is iterated by all the news sources? Everyme 20:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what would happen, if Obama self-identified himself as caucasian. Would editors continue to suggest we use bi-racial? IMHO, he should be described as bi-racial. But, it's up to him & only him. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(To Everyme)First off, please see the FAQ above. Second, the person himself refers to himself as an African American. He also allows others to call himself African American. We've got literally millions of RS sources that refer to him as African American. It is not up to us to define him any other way then what he defines himself and what the RS define him. It's kind of like you going out and saying your from the green people even though one of your parents were from the blue people. While you could say you are of mixed primary colors, it is what you identify yourself as that matters the most, not what others identify you as. A lot of the problems come from people of mixed races who have been fighting for a long time to get recognized as mixed races. Now they have a president who is of mixed race and are now screaming to get him labeled and primarily identified as mixed race even though Barack Obama identifies as African American. To these people this seems wrong and an injustice to them and everything they have fought for. So now every so often a new person tries to fight the term African American to try and get it replaced or mixed race added in so they can feel good about themselves. Brothejr (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I have looked at the FAQ above but failed to determine inhowfar it legitimises us throwing a vital part of NPOV, namely WP:ASF overboard. Secondly, do we have a source in the article for the claim that he refers to himself as African American? Also, apparently you do not understand what a reliable source is. A source may be highly reliable for one claim, but not at all reliable (as in: tabloid level reliable) for another claim. Even if each and every newspaper in the world called him African American, it would still be incorrect, and we know it, and thus should formulate it as a claim, following our applicable policy, WP:ASF. I do not at all propose replacing the widely used "first African American president". I do propose supplementing it with a simple statement that it is claim, not fact. As I asked about, I ask again: What is wrong with following our policy on such issues and simply writing "In spite of his mixed heritage, he is generally being called the "first African American U.S. president." ? Or, if need be, even more simply: "He is generally being called the "first African American U.S. president." -- which would still be better than violating NPOV by upholding a media narrative via presenting a claim as if it where a fact. Everyme 21:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to lecture me on what a WP:RS is. While I appreciate you want to argue this out to the nth degree, but as I stated above it is not up to us (wikipedia/editors) to define him and how he calls himself or add other tags because you feel it is NPOV. Also, while you may think that ever RS that calls him African American are wrong, but each of the highly respected RS's that have continually passed the RS test have called him African American. Finally, before you continue, please take some time and look through the archive and see the hundreds of attempts to discuss this. Brothejr (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are a delight to discuss with. But you do not understand. Actually, in reality, we are defining him as something which he isn't as of right now. Again, I do not propose "defining" him as anything. I do propose formulating claim as claim, not as fact. The news sources calling him African American are suitable and reliable only as primary sources for the claim that he is being widely referred to as the "first African American U.S. president". Also, I haven't found a single user having brought my valid argument before. I'm the first... Everyme 21:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not true. They are all secondary sources, and they all state as fact that he is African-American. Some of them also delve into the specifics of his ethnicity, which is a good reason for us to delve into those specifics, later in the article. It is NOT up to us to decide that the reliable sources are all wrong. In any event, I'm refactoring the majority of these discussions per your statement. There is no possible way the article will call him anything but "African American" so there's no point in squabbling about it anymore. --GoodDamon 21:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. First, the distinction between primary and secondary source is one of usage, and of appropriate usage at that. Those newspapers and reports can be used as reliable secondary sources for a range of items, but they are not at all authoritative, obviously not even trying to be strictly correct, with regard to the African American narrative theme. They can therefore not be used as reliable secondary sources on that claim, just as primary sources to back the simple assertion that they are referring to Obama as the first African American U.S. president. Please, carefully think it through: You are suggesting that newspapers are authoritative secondary sources on the question whether or not Obama is African American. That is, frankly speaking, ludicrous. Moreover, the claim is not being specifically discussed in any of the media outlets, AFAIK. We should at the very least cite sources that discuss the specific question as to whether or not Obama is African American. They can state as fact anything they want all day long, but they are still not (i) discussing the specific question, and (ii) not authoritative as regards such a question. Everyme 21:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. Zero or few reliable sources call him a mulatto or half-white/black. Are you proposing we deviated from what the vast number reliable sources say with the contention that they aren't really considering the question or being accurate? --guyzero | talk 21:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "few sources" include himself. Everyme 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion isn't going anywhere. I suggest we acknowledge longstanding consensus that this article's primary identification of Obama (following RS and other policies) is African American. If you guys want to argue over it a short while longer that's fine but at some point we need to realize that it is not going to result in a change in the article, so this talk page is not the best place for ongoing discussion on matters of race that go well beyond what we could address in a single Wikipedia article. Assuming that's clear, it's best to add this to the long list of other discussions above on race. Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus? What with the many differing voices on this talk page? Seems a bit awkward to refer to a longstanding consensus in a section that was started in an effort to remove all the input from people who don't agree... Also, fwiw, Obama just referred to himself as a "mutt" ... Delicious. There goes the argument that he sees himself as only African American. Where's your longstanding consensus now? Oh, out the window? Everyme 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, longstanding consensus. Obama does identify as AA, and virtually all the reliable sources back that up. I don't see that changing in the near future. Good catch though - you and I just edit-conflicted when I was about to add the new section, below.Wikidemon (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Another longstanding consensus was that an African American American of partly African heritage couldn't become president. Everyme 22:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• See also this AN thread. Everyme 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's rhetorical grandstanding. There was never such an editorial consensus on Wikipedia, and even if there had been such a situation would fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've already participated in a dozen or more discussions about Obama being AA, avoided perhaps a hundred others, and don't care to fire up again for one at this time - if I joined in each I would have to spend an hour a day discussing race on this one article. So I'm just suggesting that others are welcome but my position has not changed. It is exceedingly unlikely that people would agree to a change here. You would have to change how America talks and thinks about race first, starting with Obama himself, and Wikipedia is not really the place where change starts.Wikidemon (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You effectively just said you didn't read the news today, that's all.[14][15] Everyme 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does Obama joking that he is a "mutt" while discussing dog adoption have any weight in comparison to all of the primary[16] and secondary sources that refer to him at the first black President or first AA president? --guyzero | talk 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I did read the news today - and in my comments above and below say so explicitly.Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Race Smace; as Joy Behar would say, "who cares". Let's close. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering an RfC on the issue to gain wider community input, not just the status quo defenders filibustering valid arguments into oblivion. Everyme 01:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's silly just to call him African-American, because this is only one of the two main ideas of what constitutes race. The first is self-identification, and this is fine for him to do so. But it doesn't take away from the biological truth of his racial heritage, which is something else. So a simple, effective description could be "Barack Obama is considered to be the first African-American elected president by x percentage of the population. In strict biological terms, he is the first elected president with mixed racial heritage, that being 50% caucasian and 50% african.--y2rusty (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2008 (Melbourne Australia time)

We go by reliable sources, not by our personal opinions about what's "right" or what's "silly" or whatever. The sources say African American, and they also make it perfectly clear he has a mixed-race background. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to add another angle to our understanding of the term 'African American'. Obama's father is from Kenya. His mother is from the US. If one completely disregards whatever racial connotations are attached to the 'official' PC term of the moment in the US, it is still perfectly accurate to describe him as an African American, on the basis of his origins alone.--Trefalcon (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A nice, gentle discussion about race

Perhaps events have interceded. As some may have noticed, in the process of adopting a dog for his daughters, Obama made a comment that "Most shelter dogs are mutts like me". That is being picked up worldwide, and may be a gentle way to allude to his (now) self-described multiracial status if we can work it into the "personal life" section of the article somehow.[17] |}

African American section

Closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For those of you that are not aware of the previous thread here is my concerns. A number of sources identify Obama as bi-racial, hundreds say he has a white mother and black father. I think a more neutral lead would be "Obama is of a bi-racial background and is largely considered the first African American president. He is obviously 50/50 regarding race so my thoughts are picking one is not neutral. Landon1980 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC) All of this has been answered already, you all just don't like the answers. Continually asking the same questions, after they've been answered, constitutes trolling. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC) The section is here so others can comment. You did not even give the other editors time to comment. The section is always restarted because of it being removed continually. I have legitimate concerns and they deserve a chance to be addressed. One of our core policies is to conform to NPOV and my suggestion is without a doubt more neutral. Like I said before, it only takes one source to cause something to be written neutral. There are several that describe him as bi-racial. Landon1980 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC) One source or a handful of sources do not trump the predominant sources. That's undue weight. And his being bi-racial is already fully covered in the article. You're trolling, which is against the rules. You said you were leaving. Show us some good faith, and do what you said you would do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Because it's been commented on again and again for the past 3 months. Did you not bother looking at the numerous sections above that say the exact same damn thing? Grsz11 →Review! 03:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC) The fact that the issue is raised again and again should say enough. I'm not trying to trump anything. Removing the thread will just cause others to ask the same questions. I just want it to stay here for a few days and give others time to comment. On other articles even if 3 or 4 reliable sources can be cited the article is written in a neutral manner. Why should it be different here? Landon1980 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC) And Baseball Bugs, please stop attacking me personally by calling me a troll. I am being civil can you please just try and assume good faith? You have made some uncivil comments as well. Landon1980 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC) No, the ability to assume good faith with you was lost when you went on your tirade of attacks and offensive edit summaries. Grsz11 →Review! 03:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, he forfeited good faith already. He might get it back - by keeping his word, and leaving this page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Langdon: This has been discussed far past the limits of ad nauseum. You are welcome to try to gain consensus for changes to the article, but when it becomes obvious that your proposal is not going to be adopted, drop the issue. This discussion is now closed. J.delanoygabsadds 03:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

African American

Sure isn't very encyclopedic to call him the first African American president when in fact he is only half African American. He's actually the first bi-racial president, not African American. Doesn't matter what he self indentifies as, the fact he is bi-racial is a well known fact that can be cited with dozens upon dozens of refs. I've heard Obama self identify as being half white and half black several times and I'm positive I can find a reliable source for it. Landon1980 (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How on earth can you say he's half African American? His father is (100 percent) African; his mother is (white) American. So which half is African American? Manormadman (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

FAQ Q2. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please suspend your common sense, this is Wikipedia. We don't care for accuracy, we care only for endlessly parotted media narratives, no matter how inaccurate they are. IF you continue arguing for common sense and accuracy, you may end up getting indef blocked. Nevermind that we could simply (and accurately!) say that the media are using the term "first African American" instead of declaring it to be fact. Nevermind that we even have a policy in place that recommends exactly that. The majority says so, therefore it is so. Nevermind that my valid point about adhering to WP:ASF has never been responded to by anyone. Everyme 13:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Since he identifies himself as a "mutt," [18] should we not use that term, to be accurate? Huh? Seriously. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

For wiki-policy wonks, here are some reliable sources. Consensus can change. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am rolling on the floor, laughing out loud. Seriously though, WP:ASF. By all means, use the term and accurately state that he is near-universally called the "first African American". But do not state as fact that he is "the first African American". How people working on an encyclopedic project don't immediately recognise the categorical difference (in fact: ignore it even when told) and continue arguing that the mainstream are reliable sources for the claim that Obama is African American is beyond my grasp. But it tells us quite a lot about the influence of hyperrealism in these strange days. Everyme 13:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A joke at a press conference is that, nothing more. As for the wider issue, at the end of the day a lot of terminology in this area is determined by popular usage and self-identification, not scientific determination. "Irish American" is a term used on numerous articles for people for whom their strongest connection is that their great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc...-grandparent was Irish but that is the term used for and by such a group to describe and self-identify. I don't see that term being disputed up and down Wikipedia and surely "African American" is no different. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You completely ignored my valid argumentation above. Was there a reason for that? Everyme 16:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not ignore the valid points in it. The issue is not about Obama it is about the definition of the term "African American". And that term is used in such a way that those with mixed race ancestry are considered African American. The meaning of a term is how it is used, not some "common sense and accuracy" or "hyperrealism" that is arguing against the tide of use. I note that nobody has any problem with the men listed as the first African Americans to serve in the Senate, become a state governor, run for Veep or dine at the White House, all of whom had some white ancestry. If they were the first African Americans to reach those, then so is Obama the first. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ok, I have been looking into this, and the FAQ needs updating. The relevant article section is Multiracial_American#African_Americans. Obama in Dreams from My Father explains how he in his youth struggled with his multiracial heritage, and came to identify as African American. This was before the 1990s. Since the 1990s, and especially in the 2000s, the Multiracial American identity has developed, and is now of course experiencing a boost due to Obama himself.[19] Obama never ceased to self-identify as African American, of course, but he wisely put the question aside during his election campaign. Now he is elected, he is again free to self-describe without fear of damaging his poll, and lo and behold, the first opportunity he gets, he self-describes as mutt in an admirable show of self-deprecating humour. It is perfectly fair to state that Obama is a Multiracial American as well as an African American, especially since the two categories overlap significantly due to the historical US practice of hypodescent. It is also fair to note that a slight majority of Americans classify him as "biracial" rather than "black", 55% of White Americans, 61% of Hispanics and 44% of African Americans, amounting to a total of 54% of US population.[20] I am not saying the "African American" reference needs to be replaced, but it needs to be augmented by a "biracial" reference. Yes, this is important. The "mutts" comment is going to go down in history. --dab (𒁳) 14:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, should we demand a DNA test on all Black public figures, to determine the amount of European blood there is to be found in their inherited Gene pool ? You would find varying levels of European origin, but needless to say, such a query is ridiculous, as is this non issue of Black vs. mixed race Cosand (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What you choose to consider ridiculous is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The study you suggest has been carried out, see Race_in_the_United_States#Multiracial_Americans_and_admixture. Yes, it was found that about 20% of African Americans have >25% European admixture, which would mean Obama is one of about 8 million Americans who identify as "African American" but who at the same time can be classified as "biracial". Please avoid shooting down strawmen, both my comment and the articles referenced are perfectly aware that "African American" remains a matter of self-designation, not genetics. --dab (𒁳) 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, dab, and fully agree. However, in addition to your proposed addition, I still firmly believe that the "first African American" assertion should be carefully formulated to adhere to WP:ASF, for improved factual correctness. Everyme 16:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear god! I'm actually agreeing with dab on something! I guess America really has changed, lol. Scott Free (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

nice :) yes, I fully support the "first African American" bit staying in, it should just be joined by a phrase on "multiracial background" or similar. --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He is definitely African American even if he did not identify as such, any claim to the contrary is clearly flawed original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So a few years from now if someone is elected that is as far as they know 100% African American what will we call them? The second African American, the first actual African American, etc.? Everyone knows he is not the first African American president, he is the first bi-racial president. Calling him anything else is an opinion. So what if reliable sources call him African American, we know for certain that they are picking one term over the other. Calling him white is just as accurate as calling him black. And no, we aren't going to require all African Americans to undergo DNA testing to prove they are African American, this will only be an issue when we know for certain they are only half African American. This is an encyclopedia, this isn't the mainstream media. We should represent the facts. There is nothing wrong with saying the media is calling him the first African American president because that too is a fact, but the term itself should not be presented as fact. The lead could say "with a bi-racial background he is deemed the first African American President..." then go on and explain the issue. Landon1980 (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at List of African-American firsts I see a lot of first who had mixed white and black ancestry. Sticking predominantly to the political field, there's Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Senator who had a white mother and mixed race father. Or P. B. S. Pinchback, the first governor, who had a white father. So did Frederick Douglass, the first Veep candidate. Or Booker T. Washington, the first African American to dine at the White House. (And in his concession speech McCain explicitly cited this as how far things have come - did anyone object on the grounds that Washington "wasn't African American"?) But the talk page (at the time of writing) shows no sign of anyone raising the objections we're getting here. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And Homer Plessy had (famously) only 1/8th black ancestry but that didn't put him on the white side of the "separate but equal" upheld by Plessy v. Ferguson. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A few years from now? we are not a crystal ball. Your assertion he is not African American is original research, Americans choose the one drop (of black blood) theory and who are we to dispute this? Nothing of explanations please, he is African American because he has sub-saharan African blood and is a US citizen. There is nothing else to say. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well he will be the first African American President, as well as the first Biracial one. Look at the article African American, where it says, "African Americans or Black Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. In the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." At least partial! To me that sounds like biracial is allowed. They even use his picture in the topmost illustration on that page. Besides, his father was African and his mother was American, ergo he was African American. We should say he will be the first African American and biracial President. 163.1.146.17 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Squeak box, I assumed everyone would know that "in a few years" wasn't meant to be taken literal. If my assertion he is not African American is OR than yours that he is African American is OR. I can also say he is white because is mother is white. Do you honestly not understand that? Your argument is seriously flawed, substitute African American with white and you will understand how. You calling a man that is half white and half black African American is original research, calling him white is OR as well. Calling him anything other than bi-racial is OR. You only made my argument stronger. Landon1980 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not my assertion, and one drop for instance is an assertion I am not terribly comfortable with, but the assertion of the American people. I came here having edited African American and being interested in race issues I am not an American, but I understand the issues. I don't endorse any of this but my opinion as me doesn't matter, as an editor we must go with what is rather than what we believe in. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Squeakbox, the if in the "a few years from now if" statement should have been a clue to I meant if. I am aware that we are no crystal ball, that is where the if came into play. Landon1980 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC) The lead as of now presents the statement as factual. Unless the rules have changed we are supposed to write articles from a NPOV. So I suppose using the current logic the lead should read "he is the first African American president and the 44th white president." We could always do something really crazy and off the wall like acknowledge the media is calling him the first African AMerican president while stating the facts at the same time. Landon1980 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling Obama "African-American" is not original research because about eleventy-billion reliable sources refer to him as such. When it comes to biographies of living persons, reliable sources are of paramount importance. Additionally, Obama self-identifies as African-American. Now this is a subject that has been discussed on this talk page dozens of times, and the result is always the same - we must say what the reliable sources say. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well then neither is calling him white. We know for 100% certain that they are picking one term over another. Calling him white is just as accurate as calling him black. The fact he is bi-racial can be sourced as well. We can say what the reliable sources say, we can also present the facts. There are conflicting sources here, everyone knows that he is half white and half black. Picking one term over the other is original research no matter how you spin it. The only neutral term is bi-racial. It is unfair to pick one term over the other. There is nothing wrong with stating what the media says while at the same time reporting the facts. Remember, we can report the facts, opinions about the facts, but not the opinions themselves. This conversation being brought up multiple times is proof enough that the current state of the article is not neutral. You say we must report what reliable sources do and I agree with that. However, The problem is they report him both as African American and as bi-racial. Him being of mixed race has been blasted into every home across the world, everyone knows that. When sources report two different things and both are as correct as the other the only right thing to do is find common ground. The common ground and neutral way of doing this would be bi-racial, the term does not choose sides and it is accurate. Landon1980 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source that calls Obama "white" and we'll consider that here. Otherwise, this is a pointless discussion that is becoming tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you denying that he is half white? The sources say he is half white, half black. In the future read my comments before you respond to them. It is not your decision which discussions can or cannot take place here. If sources both call him African American and half white half black AKA b-racial how do you justify picking one term over the other? Calling him black orcalling him white is OR of the worst kind. So much for articles being neutral, policy flies out the window in this case I suppose. The only neutral way of doing this is saying he is bi-racial and stating that the media largely chooses to call him African American. Landon1980 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not denying anything. I am simply saying that reliable sources should be our guide, and in the event of a great number of sources (in this case, probably thousands) we use the predominant term. You appear to be advocating that we include terminology not generally supported by the many available reliable sources, which is obviously not acceptable. Also, your claims of "OR of the worst kind" demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the policy. Please re-read WP:OR to avoid misrepresenting it in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting OR and I am more than familiar with the policy. Why must everything be taken so literal? Regardless of what you say the facts are different. The fact is he is of mixed race, half black half white. Picking one term over the other is unacceptable when the sources report both. The man is half white half black and you cannot dispute that. It is very misleading in it's current state. What exactly would be the problem with saying he is bi-racial and that he is largely considered the first African American president? Can you give me a good reason why neutrality should not apply in this case? Landon1980 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDHT to you Squeakbox, I just laid out the case in front of you, including references, and you act as if the material just wasn't here. --dab (𒁳) 18:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

dab, the study suffers seriously from systematic-bias because "More than half (55 percent) of whites classified Obama as biracial after being told that Obama's mother is white and his Kenyan father is black.". Even if the respondents already knew his background, the instruction was self-serving. Its unclear if the poll even gave the respondents the option of classifying Obama as being both black and biracial. In any case, if multiple reliable sources explicitly say his biracial heritage is important enough to be saying "first biracial XYZ", then I support its inclusion. However, ...the melting pot of biracialism is somewhat a nonstarter in that in equality we are all mutts. Modocc (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"we are all mutts" too funny! I agree that the term "bi-racial" should replace "first African American president" I think it is very factually incorrect to omit the fact that he is of mixed race 50/50. I find it amazingly interesting that his race mirrors a voting phenomenon in our country where people of all races voted for him. It just seems so blatantly biased to describe him in the lead as African American instead of "bi-racial". He is what he is and not something else. NancyHeise ^talk 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Per NPOV and RS, "first African American" must be kept in the lede. Modocc (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is laughable, care to explain how picking African American over white, or African American over bi-racial is adhering to NPOV. The man is half black/half white, as such the only possible neutral ground is bi-racial. As for RS, dozens upon dozens of sources say that he is half white and half black. You had to be joking by saying AA must be kept due to NPOV, that same logic would apply to we must keep white because that term is just as correct. Landon1980 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We can say "first biracial and African American" [only] if a significant fraction of reliable sources do so. [Which they don't.] Modocc (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a large number of sources say that his father was African and his mother was white. I find it amazing that in an encyclopedia where NPOV is pushed as much as anything that picking one racial term over the other is even being entertained, let alone supported by the majority. Not one person has given me a good reason why neutrality should not apply in this case. If a few years from now someone with both parents being African American is elected what will this person be called? If one drop of African American blood automatically makes you African American I'd be willing to bet that Obama is not the first. Five former presidents have been said to have African in their blood. According to The Virginia Magazine of History Volume 29 Andrew Jackson was the son of a White woman from Ireland who had intermarried with an African American. Landon1980 (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose making any change to the present use of "African American" as the primary identifier in the lead, and also oppose any laundry lists of firsts beyond a few key ones, per what I take to be the weight of the reliable sources. When another African American is elected President, he or she will be the second. However, having participated in dozens of such discussions in the past few weeks I do not care to fire up for another one at this point, particularly one defending the encyclopedia yet again against claims of racial insensitivity, POV violations, etc. Those advocating for a change might do well to read the FAQ and if interested some of the past discussions. Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, there are conflicting sources. Someone please tell me why neutrality does not apply here. If Barrack Obama is the first African American president he is also the 44th white president. What exactly is the criteria for deciding which half outweighs the other? I am offened by the lead completely ignoring the fact he is bi-racial. Come on people he is half and half, one term is just as correct as the other. Here, for example, CNN describes him as the first bi-racial candidate. I find it hard to believe that on a subject as sensitive as race that it is ok to pick one term and completely ignore the other. Can you imagine what would be said if the lead sentence called him white and completely ignored the fact he is half African American. And yes, it is the exact same thing. Landon1980 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lecturing people that they are ridiculous is not going to help. I have reviewed this discussion and remain unconvinced. The strong majority of sources, along with Obama himself, consider him African American. It is true that he is biracial (another term that looks subjective under scrutiny). Many things are true, but that does not mean we highlight them all in the top of the lead lead of the article. The subject is adequately treated in the article as a whole and in other related articles. We follow the writing of others in deciding what to emphasize. If you have a problem with that, it seems that you may object to the current conception of race and ethnicity in America, which is a perfectly reasonable point, but a Wikipedia article is not suited to taking the lead in changing the language about race in America.Wikidemon (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right (left?); it does help reduce the uninitiated naivety though. :-) Modocc (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"it seems that you may object to the current conception of race and ethnicity in America" Could you provide a couple reliable sources that say that is how America thinks as a whole? Answer my question, why does neutrality not apply in this situation? What is the criteria for deciding which half is dominant among people of mixed race? Obama himself identifies as mixed, he even recently self identified as a mutt. The man is half white and half black, that is what he is and you cannot change that. The fact he is bi-racial can be sourced with hundreds of reliable sources. I repeat, what is the criteria for deciding which race to pick in cases such as these. Would you be ok with the lead saying he is white and not mentioning he is half African American. Let's change the lead to "He is the 44th white president..." and see what kind of response we get. One term is just as correct as the other so why not if one is to be decided upon? Landon1980 (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you also point to where I lectured someone on how ridiculous they are? The idea of picking one term over the other being OK is what is ridiculous. I am attacking the content, not the contributor. Landon1980 (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

5 paragraphs up - "that is ridiculous". Neutrality applies and taken into account. The primary criterion is the weight of the sources, checked against self-identification and being not obviously untrue. It seems that a biracial individual of (roughly) 50% African heritage and 50% white European heritage can reasonably be described as African-American. I won't delve here into why such a person is not usually described as white. That's a discussion for another day and another place. Tens of thousands of sourcs are here.[21] You can find them for yourself. Contrast with "biracial" here.[22] - Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see it, all I can find is where I said "this is ridiculous," meaning the idea of one term being picked over another. You still cannot give me a good reason why the lead should not be neutral. Calling him white is no different than calling him black. Why can't we list him as white in the lead sentence and ignore the fact he is half African American? I have yet to see a reliable source that supports ignoring the fact he is half white. The man's mother was white, his father was black. This is sad, and a poor excuse for encyclopedic content. I would be blocked on site if I kept saying he was white in the lead, yet doing the exact opposite is acceptable why? Please give me ONE good reason why the lead cannot be neutral, just one. Multiple editors have had concerns regarding this and every single time they are bullied into giving up. I'm not shutting up until someone explains to me why the lead simply cannot be neutral and must pick a side. According to policy if there are conflicting sources both sides should be given due weight. Multiple sources describe him as bi-racial. The fact he is of mixed race is undisputed. It is sickening that this article is being used to promote racism. I am extremely offended by the double standard here, and I'm certain I'm not the only person that has a problem with it. Landon1980 (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "ridiculous" was enough. I've already pointed to the sources and wont respond to incitement like "sad", "poor excuse", "bullied", "not shutting up", "double standard", and "promote racism". The article is neutral at this point, and my opposition to adding "biracial" to the lead, which I take to be the long term consensus here, stands. I do not care to discuss this further.Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing that prohibits me from saying content in itself is ridiculous. All of those who object to the lead being neutral should avoid the discussion, because of a clear bias in the matter. I still fail to see how picking black over white is neutral. Seriously, how is that neutral? We all know he is half black and half white. One term is just as correct as the other. The only possible neutral ground is bi-racial. Again, if you truly object to the article being written from a NPOV you should avoid editing the article all together including the talk page. Landon1980 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As repeatedly pointed out the way these terms are used is not the way you are assuming. Race is a far more complicated affair than mere genetics, as some of the assertions in this discussion assume. It is as much about how a group of people both identify themselves and are identified by others, as well as what the historic trend is. There is a very long history of African Americans with white ancestry being at the forefront of African American history - Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and Homer Plessey to name but three. The first two had white fathers but did that stop them from being seen as important black leaders in their day, whilst Plessey's status as black when he had 7/8ths white ancestry was upheld by the Supreme Court of the day. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Do some editors not understand that most "African Americans" are biracial? If an African moved to the US and became a citizen he would be a one-race "African American." Or multiracial? We follow the subject's self-description and the terminology used by reliable sources. African American is the most common term. Black is commonly used. Multi-racial is accurate. Edison (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, before continuing this conversation please read over WP:NPOV in particular WP:ASF. NPOV is one of our core policies and we must adhere to it. It doesn't matter how many sources support which side, the fact is reliable sources can be found in number for both. Landon1980 (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By my calculation, about four percent. Four percent of the sources probably should not be given fifty percent weight in the lede. Its undue (unless that improbability thingy gets pushed again, the tea is tossed out with the shoes, oh my aching head). Modocc (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of repeating myself while fighting for the article to conform to NPOV. Those of you that claim the lead is neutral I'd like to ask you how "the 44th white President" sits with you upon reading it. Yes, it is the exact opposite of the current state. I do believe 50% plus 50% in fact equals 100%. Therefore one term is just as correct as the other. Since either one of them is neutral I suggest we alternate between the two of them. So we can leave it as is for a month, week, or whatever. Then next month we use "44th white president." Landon1980 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, here's a radical idea: Go with what the sources say. I've got a hunch that going with what the sources say, vs. going with the personal opinions of wikipedia editors, might actually conform to policy. And keep in mind that our country traditionally embraced the "even one drop" rule, such that any "black blood" rendered someone as a "negro". So 50 percent certainly qualifies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the discussion next time before commenting. A large number of sources also say he is bi-racial. That whole one drop theory is a bunch of bull shit and is original research. Obama being bi-racial is not my opinion. If 50% is enough, then like I said, he is definitely just as white as he is black so we will save that for next month. Talk about opinions, calling him black is an opinion and so is calling him white. We all know that one is as correct as the other, and the fact is he's bi-racial.Landon1980 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for NPOV. Looks like if enough people have a biased view then that bias is accepted. Who gives a big flying fuck about the article being neutral. I guess just me, it is sickening and racist to act like black cancels out white. Most of our readers will have enough common sense to know that the lead is incorrect and misleading. I would LOVE to see how all of you would react to "44th white president." All of you keep harping about self-indentification, the ironic part is Obama has said on numerous occasions that he is black and half white and will not disown either. There is a pool of biased editors owning this article and that is sad. Those of you that object to the article being neutral seriously should consider not editing the article. Landon1980 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it perfectly clear that he's bi-racial. And the article also makes it clear that he's 50 percent African (specifically Kenyan), and 50 percent parts of English, Irish, and German. So he's more African American than he is anything-else American. And the sources say he's African American. And the public regards him as African American. So as far as wikipedia is concerned, that's what he is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand NPOV, it is about presenting the commonly held views. Your aspersions that the American people are sickening racists is not acceptable here. If I saw 44th white president I would revert a simple of vandalism. We all know he is half white and half black and that makes him black and an African American and to contradict that with fringe personal views is not NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well you misunderstand a lot of things. 44TH presidend is not vandalism if the current state is not. Say what you will but that is racist to say calling him white is vandalism when he is half white. Landon1980 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, we can all agree that this issue keeps being raised. Did any of you ever stop to think there may a reason for that? Reason being it isn't neutral? I don't wish to have first African American removed, I realize that is true. However, 44th white president is just as true because he is undeniably as much white as black. A NPOV would be something along the lines of

"He is of a bi-racial background and is largely considered the first African American president." What would be so bad about the lead being neutral? What I suggested is accurate, that is exactly the case. Even though he is only half black he is largely considered African American. Almost all of you are clearly biased regarding this for whatever reason. You all should ask yourself what the real reason you oppose the lead being neutral is. I have looked through the past discussion and a number of editors have raised the same point. Read over WP:NPOV what I suggested is exactly what it suggests we do. Landon1980 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"As much white as black" is a matter of personal opinion, hence it's original research, unless you can find a reliable source that can say definitively that his skin pigmentation is half the normal amount for a "typical" black person. The reliable sources predominantly call him African American, so to call him that is perfectly in line with neutral point of view; to try to state otherwise in the summary is nothing more than trying to make a point of some kind, which is against the rules. Also, see if you can find a reliable source that calls him the 44th white President. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Another point: You say "this issue keeps being raised." Raised by a few wikipedia editors maybe... but can you find any reliable sources raising it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL as much white as black is not an opinion. The man has a white mother and black father. Simple genetics and mathematics will tell you he is 50/50. Every point you have raised is seriously flawed. All you must do is substitute black with white to see how. This article is in bad need of intervention. It would appear it is owned by a group of Obama supporters which group together to keep out anything that doesn't sit right with them. It's so ironic that you say calling him anything other than African American is OR when it is a well known fact that he is of mixed race. The double standard that has suddenly become ok makes me sick at my stomach. No one can tell me why the lead should not be neutral, or how picking black over white is neutral. You can't deny that the lead I suggested is not neutral and accurate at the same time. Landon1980 (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHAH So if you don't agree with consensus you are put on article probation. Thanks for the formal notification, I was way too stupid to see that at the top of the page. That did put some fear in me though and I'll go ahead and quit while I'm ahead. Score one for the Obamites and 0 for the NPOV warrior. Landon1980 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article fully explains his ethnic background. No information is being hidden. There is no double standard and no violation of point-of-view rules. The rule is that reliable sources must be followed. The reliable sources say African American in their summaries, without some wordy qualification, so that's what it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm done here anyways, but no, that clearly is not what we do. Several reliable sources describe him as bi-racial, hundreds explain how he is half and half. And yes, according to policy neutral wording would be the lead I suggested. There are clearly way too many biased editors for me to continue, I'm fighting a losing battle. Sadly, on wikipedia there is nothing from keeping biased editors from pooling together and gaming the system. That is exactly what is taking place, you all are gaming the system and you know it. On any other article facts would be reported, opinions about the facts, but not the opinions themselves. Everyone of you know that it is wrong to ignore NPOV, yet you try telling yourself picking and choosing while ignoring significant facts is neutral. Seriously I'm done though, you don't even have to respond. Hopefully some of you will stop letting your personal views get in the way of editing and will step back in the future when you know you are bias. Landon1980 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, parting personal attacks. The time-honored last resort. Dayewalker (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources predominantly say African American, and that's what dictates how to word it, not wikipedia editors' personal opinions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Those saying that the one drop theory is rubbish should go to a forum or start a blog. We at wikipedia will not be held to ransom by politically motivated editors. Landon's claim that those opposing his original research are expressing personal views is highly offensive to those of us who are not letting our personal views get in the way. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And your sickening racist comments aren't any better. If I said the things you did about half white making you white and calling someone saying black vandalism I'd be blocked for racist comments. By the way, Bugs, WP:NPOV is not my personal opinion as you suggest, it is a core policy. Landon1980 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at my user page before acting like a dick and accusing me of rascism. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" is a core policy, and they say African American in their summaries. There is no POV problem here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The one-drop theory is "rubbish," it's nothing more than your personal opinion. Show me a reliable source that says one drop of AA blood cancels out an indefinite amount of white blood. It is like you don't even read others comments. This needs response from a wider community, consensus cannot be properly formed among a pool of biased editors. Landon1980 (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to read about attempts to keep Warren G. Harding from becoming President due to allegedly being an octaroon - in short, due to allegedly being "black". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the controversy regarding Harding and his presidency. I think four maybe 5 previous presidents have been said to have ties to the African race. I think Andrew Jackson's father has been said to have been black. I listed a source above that said he was black. There goes the theory of Obama being the first using the current logic applied to the article. Landon1980 (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No reliable source states that anyone besides Obama had any African American ancestry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Where does the personal opinion come into play, Bugs? Nothing I have said is my opinion, absolutely nothing. The lead I suggested is far more factual than the current, and is neutral. You act as if Obama being bi-racial is my opinion. Landon1980 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you want it to read contrary to what the predominant sources say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You really, really should read over wp NPOV. All I want is it to be neutral, dozens upon dozens of reliable sources say he is bi-racial. What would be wrong with saying he is bi-racial and is largely considered the first African American president? Everything in that lead sentence is verifiable, and can be sourced properly. Landon1980 (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article already states he's biracial. The summary reports what the dominant sources report in their summaries, i.e. African American. "What would be wrong" is imposing your view contrary to the way the sources word things. P.S. You said you were leaving. What's up? Is the train running late? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be gone shortly, does it really matter, does it Doc?

Gr8. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No point continuing this. Modocc (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Following what a newspaper calls him would be stupid honestly. What if the person that wrote it is biased?? I would have to agree with that. I'm completely against the article stating him as the first African American president elect that's only half true even though I'm thrilled that he's going to be the next president. The article should not take a follow the leader role. It's doing nothing but supporting the ignorance that was created to keep races seperate in the United States hence the One Drop Rule. I truly believe that it should state the first bi-racial president of African American descent. It makes everyone happy doesn't leave out a part of his heritage and is completely clear. It's the 21st Centuary not the Jim Crow Law days that help corrupt America's society even further by making it hard for anyone that was more than one race to claim only black blood. It's time to end this biased behavior or better yet but favortism towards him being only called African American.

Native American

There should be a section on Obama being adopted by the Crow tribe. Also included in this should be a thing about his very own blood descent from the Saponi tribe and connection to the Melungeons of Newman's ridhe Tennessee.

Barack Obama claims "Cherokee" ancestry through his mother's matrilineal line, and recently was adopted by the Crow tribe. In reality Obama's matrilineal line goes back to the Bunch family of Louisa County, VA (the same Bunch family reported by experts to be of Saponi/Catawba ancestry and ancestors of the same Bunch families that appear in the "Melungeons" of Tennessee, the "Scotts" of Blountstown, Florida, and the "Red Bones" of Louisiana and Texas). Barack's line goes like this: Barack's mother : Ann Dunham, her mother was: Madelyn Payne, her mother was: Leona McMurry, her mother was: Margaret Bellewright, her mother was: Frances Allred, her mother was: Anna Bunch. Anna Bunch was born March 27, 1814 in Overton County, Tennessee; married Samuel T. Allred and moved to Osage Township, Carroll County, Arkansas by 1880. Ann was the daughter of Nathaniel Bunch and Sarah Wade Ray. (Note: this means that Barack Obama's 4th Great Grandparent on his "white" mother's side was among the Indians of Louisa Co. VA who were recorded as "Free Persons of Color" and that Obama shares ancestry with the Virginia Tribes who are currently requesting recognition from Congress!) Nathaniel Bunch was born 1793 in Overton Co. Tenn. the son of Charles Bunch and Mary Bellamy. Charles Bunch was born 1765 in Louisa County, Virginia and married Mary Bellamy in 1792. Charles Bunch was the son of John and Rebecca Bunch, also of Louisa Co. VA Mary Bellamy (born 1769 Louisa Co. VA) was the daughter of John Bellamy and Susan "Roe". Susan was the sister of James Rowe who married the sister of Gideon Gibson (the Indian "Man of Color" who moved to South Carolina circa 1750's).”

Since Obama has a HUGE interest in his Native background and a interest in all the natives of America, then there should be a section on this. I do not know how to type it up so it would have to be someone who can put it in a professional and wikipedia quality standard.

For migration patterns on the Bunch and Gibson families visit: http://www.angelfire.com/wv2/dillon1944/old_thomas_collins_of_flatt_river.htm

The Bunch families earliest records are in Bertie county, NC as they was living next to the Collins family and marrying into the Collins family, about the same time the Saponi had a village in Bertie county, NC....as the Saponi moved back into VA some of the Bunch and Collins family moved with them after negotiations of Lt. gov Spotswood.

LAND OF THE MALUNGEONS The Nashville Daily American Written for the Sunday American By Will Allen Dromgoole August 31, 1890

THE MELUNGEON TREE AND IT'S FOUR BRANCHES By Will Allen Dromgoole The Arena ; v. 3 (May, 1891), p. 749-751.

There is litterally thousands of other documents on these Native american families and their native american history. Louisa county, Va was the ancestrial home of the Saponi tribe.

You may also contact the "Manahoac Saponi Mattamuskeet Nation" for many many resources for these families. Their website is www.geocities.com/manahoac_Saponi 67.166.239.150 (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See the article Family of Barack Obama. This is interesting (maybe Barack and I are related somehow, for General Robert E. Lee is my 5th cousin), but this particular distant relation is more suitable for that article. Would it be OK to move this request to the Family of Barack Obama talkpage? Modocc (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

Please see the FAQ, the talk page archive, and other discussions here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Correction: Barack Obama will be the first bi-racial President of the United States, not the first African-American given his mother is White and his father is Black. Since history will have been made, the records should reflect his accurate heritage. (nyclovesme) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyclovesme (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC) This has been dealt with ad nauseum. Please read the FAQ section. S.D.D.J.Jameson 20:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Newspapers have called Obama "African-American" and "black." We follow their lead, not the reasoning of Wikipedia editors. Edison (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

International 'experience'

Just an interesting thought that the added text "Obama is the first U.S. President born outside the Continental United States." brought to mind. What other president's have spent any considerable part of their life outside the USA? If I read correctly Obama spent 3-4 years in Indonesia? I would think that would be an important formative experience. And perhaps, a very crucial experience in what is and is not 'America'. Did I miss his campaign mentioning this, his unusual qualifications? I can think of several of my friends who would have more respect for an American president that knows what's beyond the borders. What's the word, parochial? Shenme (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Surprisingly little have been made of Obama's unique experience, growing up in Indonesia and with most of his living relatives in Kenya. It was even mocked when Obama mentioned it. Americans don't really care if their president grew up in another country. To them, flying a warplane and bombing another country is more experience than actually living in one. 202.40.139.164 (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not counting military service: Herbert Hoover lived and worked in Australia and China for a couple of decades -- they were trapped in Tianjin during the Boxer Rebellion. William Howard Taft was governor-general of the Philippines (and stayed on in that role even after being offered a Supreme Court seat.) That's all I could find for 20th Century presidents. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't TR the Governor of Cuba? --harej 22:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope; the Battle of San Juan Hill was July 1, 1898, and TR became Governor of New York on January 1, 1899, the same day the government of Cuba was handed over to the US by the departing Spanish. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 09:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What languages, other than English, are spoken/understood by Obama?

I believe the main infoBox should contain an item listing the languages spoken/understood by Obama. The items in such a listing should provide an approximate indication of his level of fluency in the given language. Perhaps such a listing could be in the form of a table. For example:

Language	Speaks	Reads	Writes
Spanish	good	yes	working
French	fluent	yes	yes
Arabic	understands	some	little
Indonesian	schoolboy	little	little

Indeed I believe that a 'languages' section should be introduced to ALL public-figure-related infoBoxes. In many parts of the world today English is almost certainly no longer the alternative language of choice. Indeed it probably never was. We just tend see that more clearly today.

Chris Scott 201.4.98.1 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That information is best expressed in the article, generally. People's level of fluency is often only self-reported (read: unreliable), and infoboxes are generally best for unquestionably true facts like length of term, family, and successor. More generally, it's kind of extraneous for many people, and for those it is relevant for, it should be in the article anyway where it can be discussed in more detail.

Secondly, and moderately off-topic, um, what are you talking about as far as English not being the alternative language of choice? That's totally false, it's by far the most popular second language in the world. Heck, just recently, the WaPo ran an article on Rwanda drops French, adopts English as its official language. Which is not to say that other languages aren't important, but English is still the top dog. SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

English is absolutely the worlds most spoken second-language, and its use in this context is growing. --Trefalcon (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

None of this goes in without reliable sourcing, however, of course. We can make an exception on that for English. Tvoz/talk 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation of "Barack"

I wonder if our president-elect's first name used to be something more like "bah-rack", but then got "changed" by a bunch of outsiders who didn't know any better (like the way Los Angeles "angles" got changed to "anjeles" by all the new people who moved there). From what I have found, the actual Arabic word is بارك )baarak meaning "he who is blessed" or simply "blessed", and is pronounced (in Arabic) roughly like the above-mentioned " 'bah-rack" (this "pronunciation" being of course an Anglicisation, "bah" as in "bah humbug", "rack" as in "check out her rack".

But it sounds like everybody's saying "buh-rock". Let's say it sounds a little too foreign to say "bah-rack" --- it's hard to give it an English-sounding stress pattern. So, if we decide to make it sound less foreign by just stressing the second syllable, then if we want it to rhyme with "attack", "pack" etc. it should be spelled Barack; if we want people to say (as they all seem to do anyway) "buh-rock", why not spell it "Barock" ? Since it has "ck", not just "k", it's obviously trying to look like an English word; in which case, why not follow the general rules about how things are spelled in English? Otherwise, just recognise that it's a foreign word (like Obama), spell it Barak, and say the "a" is pronounced just like the "a" in other foreign-derived words like drama, pasta etc. Jakob37 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) p.s. I know it's totally futile to complain about mismatches between spelling and pronunciation, but if Shaw could occasionally vent his spleen, so can I.

I'm not sure what your point is. Nearly all English names come from foreign names. Obama had a Kenyan father and an American mother, who were living in Hawaii at the time. Their son's name and its spelling is whatever they decided to put on the birth certificate. You would have to ask them what they were thinking, and since they are not available it is all speculation. Both the word Barak, and the name, entered many languages. It appears in the bible hundreds of times, for example - the Hebrew and Arabic versions are nearly identical. Obama will be the 15th president with a Semitic first name.[23] The three Jameses' names (Madison, Polk, and Monroe) come from the Hebrew Ya'aqov, or in turn Ya`qub in Arabic. Because neither Hebrew nor Arabic use the Roman alphabet it is all transliteration anyway. As for pronunciation, how people pronounce their own names, and how they allow others to pronounce them, is quite a subject. I doubt that anyone knows in Obama's case, but likely it is how his parents taught him.Wikidemon (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My "point" was simply to express my consternation that an Anglicized spelling in -ack is being pronounced as if it were -ock.Jakob37 (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So how does he pronounce it himself? That would be our guide. I've heard (on the UK media) both Bar-rack, with the stress on the first syllable as in "army barrack", and Ba-rack, with the stress on the second; both with short syllable sounds. Incidentally, UK commentators don't use any 'u' or 'o' sounds when they try to say his name, or say Bah-rark, with long vowel sounds. All very confusing86.147.160.133 (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

UK announcers tend to mangle foreign names, including American ones. I don't know how/where we verified the pronunciation guide at the beginning of the article. Wikidemon (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL - I was going to say the same thing about Americans - frequently mispronouncing foreign, especially French and Spanish names and words, usually by stretching the vowels - (Ramon is Ra-moan, Moulin Rouge became Mou-lon Rouge; premier (as in film) is prem-eer; pasta is paah-sta; gamelan is game-laan and so on! 86.147.160.133 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If anybody wants to contact CTV & CBC, please do. The newspeople on those stations, rarely (if ever) pronounce Barack Obama correctly. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

re:"So how does he pronounce it himself? That would be our guide." In an ideal world, that would be the case, but in this world, the majority rules, or the media rules. I have a friend here in Taiwan. As a boy, almost everyone mispronounced his (Chinese)surname, and he would correct them, tell them to check the dictionary, etc. All to no avail, so now he just grins and bears it.Jakob37 (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This page on the Internet Archive has open source audio of his campaign announcement and other audio related to him that should help. In the introduction of Obama in the campaign announcement speech, it is pronounced "Bah-rock", though that is by the introducer, not Obama. Probably the easiest place to get him saying his own name is in political advertisements on TV, where he says "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message". --Kickstart70TC 17:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they're running those on TV now, but I would bet Youtube has some of them captured. If all else fails, we'll get to hear him say his name on January 20th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This one, for example. [24] There's no better source than the guy himself. He says "burrOCK ohBAHmuh". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack HUSSEIN Obama

How come every other president's full name is listed in the infobox but "Hussein" is left out of this individual's? That should most definately STAY. It is the man's name, like it or not, that is what his given name is.

Tvfan623 (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Read ALL and compare ALL before posting a wrong statement. Saves yourself and others time. Also please stop edit warring over it. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It also saves them from looking like an idiot. But too late for that. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 02:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is stupid to make such a baseless claim without absolute certainty of the facts. Xnemesis (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the section farther down, for an answer to the original question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, being insulting and snarky to people doesn't help things and are highly inappropriate. A simple link to the other section (maybe a note on the user's talk page) and a quick archive will keep this talk page under control. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections

I have noticed that there is no criticism section as there usually is for politicians or political organizations. That indicates POV pushing to me, as a criticsim section would probably be quickly deleted by an Obamaphile. Maybe someone should add one in for the sake of neutrality and fairness. 3bman92 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a specific criticism in mind that is supported and verified by reliable sources, let's discuss it here. Then we can determine whether such a section is needed or whether that criticism would fit better somewhere else. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The MoS says we should avoid criticism sections where possible in ALL articles, putting any criticism of the person in more appropriately titled sections. This keeps each section (and not just the page overall) neutral. 163.1.146.17 (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it should be brought here first for review, rather than trying to ram it into the article and triggering an edit war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is POV if a criticism section is included, much as if a praise section was included. The issue of a criticism section has been addressed in the FAQs section located at the top of this talk page, and it states that criticisms should be blended into the article, rather than having its own area. OpenSeven (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

PRAISE SECTION

He's a good guy.

CRITICISM SECTION

He's a bad guy.

Now, does that pretty well cover it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

His comments about the coal industry? or about how his tax plan could ruin the country the same way Jimmy Catert did? I dunno just a suggestion 140.198.129.59 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox format

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) "The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the item. This does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title.".

Given that all former U.S. Presidents have their full name presented (i.e Bill Clinton, George W. Bush,Ronald Reagan etc). How is the removal of this standard here acceptable? Glen Twenty (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. And also fixed the wording cited. Persons are not "items", they are the "subject" of the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you should change John McCain's to John Sidney McCain III and do the same with Sarah Palin, and Harry Reid and Pelosi and blah blah blah. It's more than clear that this is just an attempt for the anti-Obama people to smirk at his middle name. Either all politicans/people should have their full official names, or they should match the article title. Which is it then? Tim010987 (talk)

Changing all the other Presidents is out of line. I intend to use ROLLBACK to roll them back quickly, unless I hear some objections from someone (other than Tim, obviously). Also, he won the election, despite efforts of the Limbaugh crowd to make something of his middle name, as if he had any choice in the matter. It's a non-issue now, and there's nothing shameful about the name Hussein. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Baseball Bugs. It was inappropriate to remove the middle names from all the presidents who had them simply to not include "Hussein". Hussein is his middle name and he should not be treated differently because there may be negative conotations surrounding it. It is his full name and it is required by the MOS. I have undone all the edits. --Happyme22 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree up to a certain point. First of all, it HAS to be changed at all BLP's not only the "recent" ones. Second, there is a longstanding consensus about the way it was (and nobody, including me, objected to include the birth name in the info box as there is [or was?] a spot reserved for it). Was there a new consensus build in that short time? I don't think so and even so I wouldn't oppose this change It needs a general discussion for consensus to change. Was there one? Did I just miss it? Please point me to any if there is one (as on the McCain page where I was getting aware of this was no mention about it at all). Otherwise I'm not willing to go with it "blindly". Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'm also conform with the new (but previously discussed statement that the "old" consensus was build on) below.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)The guideline presented above is for the general infobox. For people, the guideline is to use the "name" parameter for the "Common name of person" and use "birth_nam" ..."if different from name". — see Template:Infobox Person. In the case of Obama, the common usage is "Barack Obama". — ERcheck (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now he tells us. OK, I'm done screwing around with these infoboxes. The rest of you can slug it out now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why this is such a big issue. His middle name is Hussein -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! It's his name and we can't change it. But to go around and change the names of every other president with a middle name in the infobox because some do not want to place "Hussein" here is not right. It has been consistent thusfar, and the easiest way to keep it consistent is to place his middle name of "Hussein" in the infobox. --Happyme22 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be better to use Barack H. Obama II? Afterall, imagine using George Herbert Walker Bush? GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, they do use George Herbert Walker Bush. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, but only after this recent edit made while the discussion is going on. Seems like Wiki gaming and fooling editors to me. Can we please settle this first before changes are made? That would be more helpfull to the cause.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It keeps bouncing around, because there are 2 different MOS template styles being used as "proof" of the way it should read. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The full name is used in the opening of the article, and it is also in the birth name field of the infobox. The guideline for people is for the common name in the name field of the infobox; so, id is dependent on the person whether or not the middle name, etc. is used. For example, Jimmy Carter is the common usage, not James Earl Carter; end so forth. — ERcheck (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. Gosh, his full name "Barack Hussein Obama appeared in the info box under birth name and for month in the lead, right at the top. If you search for Barack Hussein or Hussein Obama guess what? It is there too. This is how it was handled for month at this page, at McCain's page and Hillary Rodham Clinton's page [note, that "Rodham" is not her middle name but her maiden name and she is referred by "Hillary Rodham Clinton"--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me respond to the George H. W. Bush thing above -- as a primary editor of that page, I can say with all certainty that the infobox read "George Herbert Walker Bush" for a very very long time, until User:Tim010987 changed it as he changed all the presidential articles. I promptly reverted those, so that is why it may seem that Bush's full name was added today when in reality it was not. This is the only article that is screwing everything up because of some silly reasons.

I'm hearing two different things: one is saying full name at the top of the infobox, the other is saying common name, and both are said to be from the MOS (?!?). Just for the record, the first ladies all use their full names (and have been doing so even before User:Tim010987 went through them earlier). Happyme22 (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: I checked into the matter and it seems that the full name is what is required per WP:IBX, section "Design and Usage", number four (4). In this case, the subject of the article is Barack Obama, just as the subjects of all the other presidential articles would be those presidents. This is a Wikipedia guideline, and editors should follow it. Happyme22 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the "standard" is for other Presidential bios, the same should be used here. --Tom 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs had changed, in good faith, the guideline, substituting "subject" for the original "items". That won't work unless lots of BLPs get warped-drive into odd names, so I updated to the guideline to differentiate between items and people. I'm sure some would like to make their subject more important with fullnames, but I personally think the hyper-naming that is advocated here is inappropriate and unnecessary with all BLPs. There is a world loaded with all sorts of egos. Modocc (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, whatever the "standard" is for other Presidential bio info boxes, it should be used here unless there is a good reason not to. --Tom 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

But one issue to consider here is that no previous president (that I can think of offhand) has been faced with his full name being used as a pejorative smear by ideological opponents, thus making its usage in such a prominent location a potential WP:BLP issue. Tarc (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The infobox should contain Barack Hussein Obama II. Period. Everyme 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This will probably be my last post on this matter. This is in response to User:Modocc above:

Thank you for alerting me to that, but I do have a few questions: why did you link to Template:Infobox person as the guideline to follow rather than that of WP:IBX? True, IBX originally said "items", and Baseball Bugs, in good faith, changed it to subjects, but what makes it right to point to a completely different policy from that one without, at least, discussing it on the talk page of that template?

Also, this article, as well as every other article on a president, does not use Infobox person; it uses Template:Infobox Officeholder, which includes persondata at the bottom. Template:Infobox Officeholder does not give an answer of whether to put the common name or full name in the "name" field.

So it seems that we are back to the beginning with no policy or guideline one way or the other. And while I applaud you, Modocc, for alerting me to this, I disagree with your characterization of "hyper-naming" and people with egos. I frankly don't care either way, but I don't think that we should change every other article on a president so that Hussein does not go above his picture.

There is just another thing I would like to bring attention to. Someone brought up in a discussion below this one that not every article on an American president contains his middle name in the infobox. The reason why this happens is because we do not have his middle name, as is evident by the first words in the article. If he had a middle name, and if we knew about it, it would have been included in the first bolded words of the article (as is done in this very article). These include Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley, Benjamin Harrison, Andrew Johnson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Pierce, Zachary Taylor, etc. etc. do the same.

So there are a couple things we can do: a.) simply insert his middle name and "II" following his last name to conform with that of other presidents; b.) start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder to get other views and reach a guideline to conform by. I am going to leave my comments at this, but I hope that a solution can be reached and not a partisan one -- it's just their names after all! But it has surely been interesting. My best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand change can sometimes be difficult to accommodate, but if we are to have consistency here, all the presidents/prime misters/popes/kings/queens/and pop singers too should have their most recognizable identity listed in accordance with the MoS naming convention and major templates should conform. If we cannot agree on this, then sure we need more opinions. Don't know if a template talk page is the place, I'd say the MoS style guideline talk page is the proper place. Modocc (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"So it seems that we are back to the beginning with no policy or guideline one way or the other."

That is incorrect. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity. MoS is the guide. Modocc (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Presidents of the United States Template

This Template should be removed, as George W. Bush is the President. Let's wait until January 20th, 2009 before adding the Template. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No reason to remove it. It says President elect, which is correct. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the Infobox, the Template (near the bottom of the article). GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. I don't think it's a big deal. It's not like predicting the outcome of the November 4th election on November 3rd. But others might think differently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah come on. The template (with or without Obama's name) is correctly shown at Cheney & his predessors' articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone said on the Biden page, people are going to mess with it for the next 2 months anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anybody mind if I speed up Misza? This page is getting many more (albeit lame) edits. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Gopher it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, consolidating discussions on the same topic (race, president-elect designation, name, etc) into the same top level heading seems to create a bottleneck. The bot sees that the topic heading has had some activity so it does not archive any of the old discussions. There are a couple ways around this. One is to divide the section into "old" and "new" top level headings so the bot will archive all the old ones. The other is to archive by hand. I hope that makes sense. Wikidemon (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to archive manually but I must confess that I almost don't have a clue about archiving. But as long as those files are accessible as the "usual" are for easy searching, just go ahead. If by the way someone has time and the courtesy to post a link to the easiest way to build an archive for my talk page or even better, explain it to me like I'm a 4year old I would be very very appreciated.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, ummmm.....one editor -- i forget who -- removed all the section headings and replaced them with bold markup (i.e. ''' instead of ===) in order to keep the size of the table of content within bounds. Unfortunately, that messes up the bot that creates archive indexes by subject keyword. Ah, C'est la vie. We're in uncharted territory regarding how to deal with talk pages as busy as this one. Nothing on Wikipedia ever really goes away, it just becomes more accessible or less so. Anyway, when the archive bot grabs a section that has been closed by the "hat" or "discussiontop" template, it still goes into the archive....I don't know if the closure templates are preserved or not. It would make sense to remove them when archiving though - collapsing discussions is a convenience for people trying to contribute to the current active talk page, not an attempt to bury the discussion permanently. Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Its official.Supreme Court tells obama to produce certificate of live birth by dec 1

No reliable source has treated this as a serious matter, and the discussion here violates WP:FORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this needs to be included. No. 08-570 http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm http://www.obamacrimes.com/ http://therightperspective.com/wordpress/?p=311 this is big and needs to be included. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.103.242 (talk • contribs) If it were (and I'm not saying it should), I think it would be more appropriate on the election article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC) WP:FRINGE. Tvoz/talk 08:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC) These are all clearly biased websites. CTJF83Talk 08:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I don't think anything calling itself "obamacrimes" can be considered a reliable source. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC) “I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says attorney and writer Raymond S. Kraft. Can we all start laughing now? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Oh how I love wacky right wing crack pot theories. Can we say, "Sore losers!"? CTJF83Talk 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC) No, these aren't "sore losers" -- just, as you say, crackpots. Berg is particularly amusing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 09:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Um, no. The Court did not order him to do anything by Dec 1, it just told him that if by some chance he plans to respond to this lawsuit, Dec 2 will be too late. If I were Obama I'd ignore the whole thing, and trust the Court to dismiss it sua sponte as frivolous. Preferably with sanctions. As near as I can tell from a brief wade through this swamp, there's nothing like a case to be made. It's all pure speculation, plus some arguments (such as the Indonesian-citizen claim) that don't even hold up under their own terms. And I say this as someone who'd do nearly anything to reverse last Tuesday's result. -- Zsero (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC) If there were anything to this story, Limbaugh would have been all over it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC) My God, the least that the original poster and the crappy blogs he or she got this stuff from could do is ask someone with a minimal amount of education in the law before trying to call this farce 'big.' I also have to disagree with the poster two spots up. No, the court isn't asking Obama to respond. December 1 is the due date for the court's response for certiorari. A writ of certiorari is a writ that must be filed for when one wishes to have his or her case appealed to the Supreme Court of any given state (to be technical, not all states call their highest court Supreme Court) or the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm not sure if this case started out in the state or federal system, but Berg is trying to appeal the lower court's ruling to the Supreme Court. Both of the lower courts ruled that Berg doesn't have standing to challenge Obama's citizenship. This is important because NO ISSUES OF SUBSTANCE HAVE BEEN RULED ON. The only thing at issue, at this point, is whether or not Berg has standing on this issue. He doesn't, he clearly doesn't, it's a point that is patently obvious to anyone who understands what 'standing' means. Berg's protected rights or interests are not at issue here and no, being a citizen doesn't mean one's rights or interests are at issue when challenging a presidential candidate's location of birth. The most conservative court in the history of this country, take nine judges who make Scalia look like a bleeding heart liberal, would not rule that Berg has standing. It's a basic issue that has been ruled on again and again and again (such a 'lawsuit' is in no way unique, in fact McCain had one filed against him this year as well). Every court has always ruled that such an individual doesn't have standing. End of story, case over, doesn't matter if you show me some documents or say 'but what about...' no standing, it's a non issue period. The only one who would have the right to bring this suit is John McCain. To return to an earlier point, the whole reason that I keep harping on the issue of standing, I repeat that the merits of the suit itself have never been heard. While there clearly is no merit to the claim, the point is Obama, or his attorney, haven't had to respond to anything. He hasn't be hauled into court yet. The court has to at least determine the base entry level issue of standing first. So no, the Dec. 1 date has absolutely nothing to do with Obama whatsoever. The court is due to give their response to the writ on Dec. 1. Just so you know, the U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of writs of certiorari every year, and accepts very few. You don't have the right to have your case heard before the Supreme Court, you only have the right to have your case heard on the trial court and first appellate rung level. A Supreme Court gets to pick and choose which cases they want to hear, and as I just pointed out they are very selective especially with the federal Supreme Court. There is a NEAR CERTAINTY that the Supreme Court will deny this writ. It isn't a case that would interest them. They tend to stick to cases where there's some debate between jurisdictions or where an issue is particularly complex or where state courts or federal circuit courts deviate radically from binding precedents in a holding. This is not such a case. There is no debate between jurisdictions, the issue is incredibly simple and the circuit court gave a holding that every other court has held on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court is far too busy to waste their time with a case this trivial. The point is that this so called lawsuit doesn't even reach the threshold of recentism, it's more like...well nothing at all. Not only is the original poster incredibly ignorant for calling this 'big,' it's not even little, it is absolutely nothing but an illustration of why our courts are clogged up and how much of our judicial resources get wasted on people who either have nothing better to do than file suit or lawyers who are too stupid to know what makes a valid suit. Berg might be either, I don't know. If he doesn't know that he doesn't have standing or that his case doesn't have merit then he is a colossal moron. Either way, let me sum up why all of this is irrelevant and nowhere near important enough to mention in the election article let alone Obama's bio: Berg hasn't even satisfied the standing issue to even begin the actual lawsuit process itself, the Supreme Court will not waste their time and on or before Dec. 1 they will deny the writ of certiorari and even if they did there is no doubt what way they will rule. The decision would be unanimous. Even if, somehow, all nine members of the court got drunk on the same day, forgot the law and decided to give Berg standing, Obama's attorney would file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim which would be granted. The point is Berg will never get the merits of this case heard by anyone. This whole 'issue' is stupid. Don't make claims about legal issues and make a case out to be big if you aren't even educated enough to already know everything I said in my rant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Wow, that's a lot of words for a little subject. I have no idea what you're disagreeing with. The Court did give Obama until 1-Dec to respond; i.e. if for some reason he chooses to respond, that's when it has to be in by. What the nuts have misunderstood is that this doesn't mean he has to respond at all, and I'd be surprised if he did. There's absolutely no reason why he should, and it would only give the nuts credibility that they don't deserve. -- Zsero (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Sorry for the rant, but I'll keep this one shorter. Again, you are wrong. Obama is not even at issue yet, therefore there is nothing for him to respond to. The issue is standing. The lower courts held, as all courts have held for similar cases, that Berg can't even bring the suit at all regardless of merit. Obama hasn't been dragged into court, Obama's lawyer has not had to respond to anything. Basically the way it works is this: Berg tries to file suit, but in order for that suit to be heard by anyone, he has to meet a certain constitutional threshhold laid out in article III. To summarize, Berg, before a suit can even be filed and heard, has to sufficiently establish a claim which involves his legally protected interests, that there is a causal relationship between the injury and Obama's conduct and that there be some relief for the injury which the court could redress. Obama has not been served with anything. The claim has yet to even pass the very bare minimum to even exist as a valid suit. If you don't have legal standing, essentially there is no suit. So no, Obama does not have to respond to anything, he is not a party to this appeal. Read the docket again. The appellant is the Department of Justice represented by the Solicitor General. The DoJ is the appellant here, not Obama. The DoJ is not representing Obama. The DoJ is the appellant because Berg is essentially making a claim against the court itself, not for issuing a holding or ruling in favor of Obama, but for denying him access to the court, not allowing his claim to be heard at all. This process has nothing to do with a defendant whatsoever, there is no defendant, there is no suit, because for there to be a valid suit and a defendant being sued, there has to be someone with legal standing to bring a suit in the first place. Sure Obama's on the case heading, but don't let that fool you, he's not a party to this appeal. Why would he be asked to respond to an appeal to which he is not a party? Again the response date is solely about the Supreme Court responding to the writ of certiorari and has absolutely nothing to do with Obama whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.222.236 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC) s/appellant/respondent/g. Berg is the petitioner, or appellant. The SG is the respondent. But Obama is the original defendant; I don't know, but I imagine that the SG is included in the "et al". In any case, if Obama were really concerned about this case it would make sense for him to respond by giving the Court an argument against granting cert. However since the suit is frivolous, he'd be stupid to dignify it with a response. I don't even think the SG should respond; let the Court deny it on its own (lack of) merits. -- Zsero (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Both change.gov and barackobama.com state he was born in Hawaii, USA.88.114.210.44 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Well, of course they do. That doesn't prove it's true. I mean it almost certainly is, and there's no reason to suspect it isn't, but those sites would say it even if it weren't. -- Zsero (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC) If the Supreme Court made such demands on the President-elect? CNN hasn't mentioned it; it would've been Breaking News. In otherwords, don't include. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Uh, excuse my apparent naivete (not to mention that this comment is a bit WP:FORUMy), but wouldn't it be a moot point anyway?!? --Jaysweet (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC) No. There's definitely something fishy about that image and its provenance. I think there's a reasonable case that Obama is covering up something; I don't know what, but Occam's razor says it's a whole lot less spectacular than what these nuts think it is. I suspect it's something mildly embarrassing, but not even politically damaging, let alone legally. Another possibility is that he's not really covering anything up, he's just been messing with the nutcases' minds, to keep their attention away from his real flaws. -- Zsero (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC) The supreme court link shows application was denied, whatever that means. 88.114.210.44 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC) It's their polite way of saying "buzz off, morons". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC) No, Berg's application for an injunction was denied. The cert petition is still in, and won't be denied until after 1-Dec. Because the defendant needs to be given time to respond, just in case he wants to, even though in this case everyone knows he won't. Once the deadline passes and no response from Obama is received, the Court will consider the petition, and deny it. -- Zsero (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry, I just read the section heading because the discussion is too long. Is there really some question as to whether or not Barack Obama was born alive? --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC) No, it's just poorly worded. There is an argument (albeit small) that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii but in Kenya which would not make him a "natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States" (per Article II) of the US constitution. Even if born in Kenya, I think he could be a Citizen of the US but IF his mother had been over 18 years and remained her for the ten years (which she hadn't). He would be a naturalized citizen (aka California's Governator) and thus ineligible. Obama team's main argument in response has been that the plaintiff doesn't have the right to sue (since he is asking him to be disqualified and that the electors cannot vote for him), which is a procedural argument (but a legitimate one to avoid the real question). Obama has produced the short form certificate but I think they want the long form. John McCain interestingly enough, being born in the Panama Canal, was an issue too but the Senate passed a resolution saying "he's a citizen, let's forget this." It's dumb but procedurally the Court is doing its job. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC) They're not alleging he wasn't born alive, they're demanding that he produce his actual birth certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) to prove that he was born in Hawaii, and not, say, in Kenya or on the Moon. For a long time he produced nothing, and then he let his friends at the Annenberg Political Fact Check see a photoshopped image of an "extract". If he wanted to settle this, he could have authorised the Hawaii Dept of Health to release his full birth certificate to anyone who asked. But he didn't, which implies that he had some reason not to want people seeing it; either there's something he's covering up, or he just likes playing mind games with the paranoid types. This Berg guy is a real nut job, a troofer, and if something looks in the least suspicious he jumps to the most unlikely explanation he can think of. And he thinks he has standing to sue presidential candidates for ineligibility; the precedents say he doesn't. He's exactly the kind of person who's capable of thinking that when the Court set a deadline for any response Obama might like to make, it was actually ordering Obama to respond by that date. -- Zsero (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC) There are no reliable sources which characterize the short-form birth certificate provided to factcheck.org as "photoshopped". The only people who've claimed that it looked photoshopped are fringe Internet types. Hawaii state law says that the original birth certificate can be released only to people who have a "tangible interest" in the matter; however, the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics and Department of Health Director have both viewed and verified the original, long-form birth certificate. [25] I think it more likely that he realizes that only a handful of people care about this birth certificate business, and he's too busy focusing on things like selecting a cabinet and solving the financial crisis to worry about satisfying the curiosity of a few bloggers. More important, this discussion is not likely to affect the article, since no reliable source is treating this matter seriously. I'm going to close the discussion, per WP:FORUM. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

President

Shouldn't the saying that a Luo could become president of the US before Kenya be included? see BBC News 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama is not a Luo - his father was, but the designation is not "passed on" to children unless they live in region and speak a language of the Luo. The President-elect was not born there, never lived there, and is not (and has never been) part of their society. That being said, I know the Luo people are enormously proud that one of their descendants (as it were) will become POTUS. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

44th President-elect

The infobox is inaccurate. While Obama will be the 44th President of the U.S., he will not be the 44th President-elect. Gerald Ford, Andrew Johnson and Chester Arthur were never a President-elect. Also, LBJ was already president when he was first elected, so he was not president-elect either. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is true. On the other hand a quick Google brings up numerous references to him being the 44th president-elect. Being English I've no idea whether this is the normal convention or not, i.e. to use his "presidential" number regardless of how many presidents-elect there have actually been. If in doubt perhaps the number should be removed until he is sworn in. MFlet1 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That's what I did. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct move. John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur & Gerald Ford were never President-elect. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is dependent on whether you read (44th president)-elect or 44th (president-elect). The former is true; the latter is not.--Appraiser (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're onto it. He is the "44th President"-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It should just be President-elect. Something could happen where Cheney becomes the 44th, then Obama the 45th. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We're sticking with President-elect (and Vice President-elect at Biden page); so it's a moot point. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion!

United Church of Christ is not a religious belief! It is a church, it would be more suitable if change to Protestant Christian (UCC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.77 (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It's customary to use that slot for denomination. McCain, for example, has Southern Baptist; and Dubya has United Methodist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Barry Soetoro

I have read several articles referencing the name "Barry Soetoro" as one that belonged to Mr Obama. Should that name redirect here? I would just create the page but I have noticed that it has been deleted several times. Can anyone provide reason for why it was deleted? Plhofmei (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because no reliable source has anything about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally conside We The People Foundation to be a reliable source Plhofmei (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. Does Rush Limbaugh use them as a source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They are an anti-government website and political group. They have a page here too: We the People Foundation. They seem to have a highly pejorative perspective, it would seem to violate WP:NPOV to use them as a sole source. The group's main focus is trying to convince the US government to stop collecting income taxes. This firmly puts them into the fringe status. VictorC (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It's obvious they are not a reliable source for anything other than laughter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Barry Soetoro seems like a straightforward enough redirect to this article. His childhood use of this name is discussed in the body. While I doubt anyone would be seeking that name first, a redirect is cheap and harmless. LotLE×talk 20:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence in the article that he ever went by this name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

First actions proposed as president

It is notable to mention Obama's first proposals to act, stopping oil drilling and stem cell research, both executive orders by Bush. The oil drilling is notable because Obama was against it, then for it (probably to gain votes), then has gone back to his original stance. This might be noted in his political positions. These are fact, reported in Yahoo News, and are not anti-Obama. 74.174.46.41 (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite any reliable sources for that? 'Cause I thought he was going to outlaw all guns and cede Alaska to the Ruskies first. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, those are all speculation. Until it's a done deal WP can't include them, even if there are RS speculating on what he might do. It's kind of like "who might he appoint to the Supreme Court." Until it happens, it is a Crystal Ball.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not the news. Attempting to incorporate material like this will lead to an extremely unstable article. Unless the permanent importance of something is immediately obvious (such as winning the election), it's better to let the dust settle before adding material to the article. looie496 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It can probably be sourced, and stated neutrally, that Obama [or certain aides] stated on xxxx that his first act as President will be to reverse 200(?) executive orders enacted in the previous administration, including X, Y, and Z. Technically that is not a WP:CRYSTAL because it goes to stated intentions rather than future acts, and it is not a NEWS issue because it is a significant act with long-lasting results. However, the stability argument is interesting. Once he takes office and (presumably) makes good on the statement, the fact that he broadcast it in advance will be moot so the article will have to be edited so as to come current. Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How about an international reaction section??

The BBC was reporting on the evening news broadcast a few nights ago that "Barack" and "Michelle" are becoming the most popular names for new-born babies in Kenya...

• Kenya declares holiday for Obama - Wednesday, 5 November 2008
• Obama name craze for Kenya babies - Thursday, 6 November 2008

In the Caribbean there's been substantial celebration regarding the Obama win.

• Jubilation, ecstasy grip Caribbean Community with Obama's victory
• Congratulations pour in from the Caribbean to US president-elect Obama - November 6, 2008
• CARICOM looking for early talks with US president-elect - November 05, 2008

• The Barbados Prime Minister puts out official congratulations statement to Obama
• Barbados government officially invites Obama's Family for a post-elections vacation - September 01 2008

• The Government in Antigua and Barbuda wants to name a mountain in the nation after Barack Obama.
• Antigua wants to rename highest peak 'Mount Obama' - Thursday, November 6th, 2008 7:35 pm ET
• Antigua plans to rename highest peak after Barack Obama - Nov 7, 2008

CaribDigita (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Digital^Ninja 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a good addition to the article in that it is unprecedented and historic, and unexpected. No other US presidential election in historic memory has elicited this kind of world reaction. Additionally, the fact that his election came on the heels of a world-wide, dismally unpopular president makes it even more surprising and more noteworthy. I have to call this historical, noteworthy, and to omit at least some documentation of this world-wide reaction would be irresponsible. No US president-elect in historical memory has ever had mountains named after him and holidays set aside for him. VictorC (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not appropriate material for this article. It would provide little of encyclopedic value about Obama's life, and frankly would just be cheer-leading for him. In fact, I can't really see the "international reaction" article as particularly encyclopedic, and would support its deletion. --GoodDamon 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

More fitting for the article about the campaign. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV surely stops this being a section? It would have to be balanced with McCain supporters naming toilets after Obama or something ..... CorrectlyContentious (talk) 07:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for it with pro's and con's since the world is watching almost as much as we where in this exceptional election with an (initially) unpredicted outcome. I guess both "sides" agree on the latter one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama As an IT Savvy

How about having a section about his love of internet and technology ? We all know about his victory propelled by using Information Techonology !(one of this is a special software designed for his iphone to keep contact with his campaign). The latest news is, he establish a new website Change.gov to allow him to receive ideas from mass population about Change. I would love to add this bit of information on the article, but just don't want to take any risk as still am a "newish" !. Would appreciate any constructive comments.--minervauk (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is only tangentially biographical. While it is certainly interesting, it is probably suitable material for a child article, assuming reliable sources can be found to reference the information. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Or as part of the discussion about the campaign, as it contrasts withg McCain's almost prideful ignorance of high-tech. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What "almost prideful ignorance"? He can't use a keyboard for the same reason he can't tie his shoes, and the ad attacking him for it was utterly dishonourable. Even Biden said so until his handlers sat on him. -- Zsero (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about his ability to type or not, I'm talking about his ignorance of the internet. I guarantee you, the next GOP candidate will not have that problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)