Talk:Barack Obama

Redundant discussions

Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion on the "president elect" designation, or Obama's race/ethnicity. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article or section related to the Transition Team? Chadlupkes (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Race/ethnicity" section has (presumably by "Wikidemon", the self-styled "owner" of this page) not just been consolidated or shifted to another already existing section: it has, in effect, simply been removed. The contents are no longer available unless one presses a special link to enter the "archive". Wikipedia guidelines explicitly forbid tampering with other contributors' material on a Talk Page. The current treatment of the "Race/ethnicity" section (rendering none of the contributions visible on the main Talk Page, effectively "hiding" it all inside an "archive") is a violation of these guidelines.Jakob37 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything that can be done to speed the loading of this talk page up, I'm all for it. It's taking forever to load, and old issues that have been discussed ad infinitum don't need to be here. It's hard enough to discuss current issues as it is. Dayewalker (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, there are several other "overly large" sections that could be archived. If User#1 thinks that Topic X is too long and boring, then that user may, without further ado, hide its contents inside an archive. But then User#2 thinks that Topic Y is too long and boring, so that user hides Topic Y's material inside an archive, although User#1 thinks it should stay visible. Is that how it's going to work?Jakob37 (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the issue of African-American, mixed race, Black, designation by oneself vs. by others, etc., this talk page has spiraled completely out of control. I was rather miffed a day or two ago to find that my contributions, along with others, on the subject had, without any consultation, suddenly been stuffed into an archive, and now I am doubly miffed to see that the same subject has grown another head, even much larger than the material subjected to archiving, and yet nobody is archiving it this time -- quite UNFAIR. In any case, the more important point I would like to raise is that 95% to 99% of the contributions on these interconnected topics have no PARTICULAR connection to Obama; these issues are part of the socio-political nature of American (U.S.) life. Since there seems to be no lack of Wiki-editors who love to manipulate other people's contributions, may I suggest that all this material, instead of being archived (effectively out-of-sight, out-of-mind), be used to construct a separate article on "race attitudes in the U.S." or something to that effect (cf. my comment in "Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama" ). The Obama article itself should contain an appropriately brief discussion of Obama's relationship to these issues, followed by a hyperlink to the (proposed) article where these issues are described/discussed in the larger context that they deserve. And the Obama Talk-Page will then hopefully return to a focus on Obama himself. The way that Obama has dealt with these issues is not so different from the way thousands or even millions of other people have.Jakob37 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama and race

I am creating this thread in response to the recent dispute on WP:ANI. Please not prematurely archive it.

Currently the article page says that Obama is an African American. There has been an objection raised that Obama is in-fact biracial or multiracial. The purpose of this discussion is to determine a workable solution to the conflict. Some notes:

• There are citations in the reference section that support that Obama is:Black, African American, biracial, and multi-racial.
• Term African American can refer to persons of predominately or only partially African slave descended: "in the United States, the term is generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry.
• comment on the edits, not the editors
• Breaches of civility are unacceptable.
• Please don't appeal to previous discussions or previous consensus, try to find one that works now.

Figure it out.--Tznkai (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Insanity is generally defined as trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We're all "mutts" of some form or another, but the majority of sources describe Obama simply as African-American. This is what the consensus opinion of editors around here have come to, and while consensus can change, it certainly does not appear to be doing so on this topic. The only real "workable solution" here is for you to come to terms with the fact that your point of view here is in the minority. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am open to pretty much anything that incorporates bi-racial into the lead. I still do have a problem with the neutrality of the lead section. My proposal remains stating he is b-racial and that he is largely considered the first African American president, or just add bi-racial and leave out "largely considered" because more sources refer to him as African American than anything else. I feel that adding bi-racial would stop most of the complaints and fail to see how that would harm anything. Dozens of sources can be found as a reference. Landon1980 (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly reject the entire premise of this thread. There comes a point when these continuous discussions become disruptive because they will never achieve anything useful while preventing discussions on more useful topics. The preponderance of reliable sources, numbering in the tens of thousands now, refer to Barack Obama as "African America," so there is no need to change the line in the intro to anything else. This will not change no matter how many times we talk about it. Nor will the requirement in WP:BLP that we use only the most trusted and reliable sources. There is literally no point in dragging this on any further. And may I point out that when this thread reaches its inevitable conclusion -- that the line should not be changed -- it will eventually be archived ... and then someone else will start a new thread on the same topic again. --GoodDamon 19:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever disruption there is in having multiple discussions they pale in comparison to the disruption seen on ANI. One of you could try something creative by the way and cut the Gordian knot by offering a compromise or simply treating your fellow editors with respect, instead of the escalating tendentiousness--Tznkai (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no reasonable way to compromise on this. WP:BLP is set-in-stone policy, and it requires us to use proper weighting and reliable sources. Asking for compromise on this is like asking for compromise between one person saying 2+2=4 and one person saying 2+2=5. There is no compromise; one is performing addition correctly, and one is not. Whatever is happening at ANI is moot. --GoodDamon 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly isn't moot, and that is a very negative approach to take. Figure this out, please, and consider that the "other side" might actually have some valid points to make. Hear them out! AGK 20:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Obama is African-American, and he is also biracial. He is also from Hawaii, of English descent, a Chicago resident, and any of many dozens of other facts about his background, race, ethnicity, ancestry, etc. We have room for some of them in the bio article, but not for everything. Because this is a biography we try to include the most important, relevant, telling facts, and where that is not clear we can look to reliable secondary sources for an indication of how much weight the world outside of Wikipedia gives to things. It might matter a great deal to some people, for example, that he is left handed, or a basketball player. But not to others. These things get mentioned sometimes by the press so they might be worth a passing mention in the article. In many of these cases he is the first - the first President-elect to be born outside of the continental United States. Probably the first left-handed basketball playing president elect too. A substantial number of sources say he is biracial, but they are a tiny minority compared to the sources that point out he is African-American. From this it is fair to deduce that the most salient first is that he is the first African American president-elect. That is what gets the most coverage, not that he is biracial. That could change, and perhaps it should, as America becomes more aware of and comfortable with the fact that so many people are multi-ethnic. But it's not really our place to jump out ahead of where the rest of the world is as far as awareness of social issues. We're a compendium of existing knowledge and thought, not an agent for changing it. So given the world as it stands, we should definitely mention near the top of the lead that he is the first African American president elect, but be judicious on other ethnic designations or other firsts. It is already clear from the article that he has a black father and a white mother. There is nothing wrong with a statement that this makes him biracial. That statement could go somewhere in the lead where it is not his primary ethnic identification (because it is not, in people's eyes), or else somewhere in the body of the article. (btw, I sympathize with GoodDamon, above - I have participated in this discussion a few dozen times already, and don't think this will be the last one either) Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you could give a concrete example of the biracial identifier in addition to the African American sentence?--Tznkai (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(inserted out of sequence). Sure. Ignoring the timing issue, and taking a very rough stab at the language we could say somewhere in the lead "Obama is the first African American president of the United States.... the son of a white (European-American?) American-born mother and a black (or mention tribe or ethnicity) father from Kenya, Obama is considered [[biracial]]". Or we could condense it and play around with it - "The son of a Kenyan father and a white American mother, Obama is generally considered the first African American president". This would all take a bit of work to get right without offending any sensibilities, but I think we can accurately describe his background while also accurately conveying that the big deal for most people is that he's the first ever African-American president. Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep getting edit conflicted. The thing is just in the last month over a 100+ editors have expressed concerns about this. The bot wipes out the thread and it's always different people being compared against same frequent editors and you all claim consensus based on this short period. How would adding bi-racial to the lead sentence be harful if you leave African American? Having the elad say "He is of a bi-racial background and is the first African American president." That lead could be cited with hundreds of sources. Landon1980 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to distinguish "African-American" from "black". Many of the objectors to the existing terminology object on the basis that Obama is multiracial; not "white" or "black", but "white" and "black". While true, this is actually nothing to do with him being an "African-American", which means something slightly different. Most (though not all) of the gazillions of reliable sources that write about the "historic" aspect of Obama's achievement are referring to his "African-Americanism", rather than his skin color. I believe this subtle difference is a uniquely American thing borne out of the civil rights struggles in the 20th century. There have been lots of "black" presidents in world history, but there has never been an "African-American" president. With this in mind, the current terminology - describing him as "African-American" - is correct. Descriptions concerning his ethnicity and/or skin color are actually a separate issue that may or may not need addressing. That's how I see it, anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec, response to Landon1980) There is no harm per se, and it might do some good for the world. But it does not match the sources. The vast majority of news articles call him African-American and do not call him biracial. In particular, the sources that say he is the "first" nearly all do that with respect to his being African-American, not being biracial, or the first person of color, the first person from Hawaii, the first born in the 1960s, etc. If we gave equal prominence to the fact of his being biracial we are making a statement that it is equally notable, which just isn't the case. We would stick out next to the other sources in the world, and readers would (correctly perhaps) assume we have a nonstandard POV and are promoting some kind of agenda.Wikidemon (talk)

I'm not suggesting African American be removed; Im suggesting that bi-racial be incorporated into the lead sentence. I think that would solve everything, I spent hours last night looking back through the talk history and him being b-racial is what most say, not that he isn't African American. He is without a doubt African American, he is certainly white too. Would bi-racial be harmful to the lead? If yes how? Landon1980 (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Harmful to Wikipedia but good for the world. Each in a small measure, which is why I can't get as excited about this question as some other people. It would favor the POV that his being a biracial president is just as groundbreaking and important as his being an African American president. That's a good POV to have, and the world would be better off if people had a more subtle appreciation for race, but it does not align with the majority of what people actually think, as evidenced by the weight of the sources. So as I said it would make it look like we have an agenda. People would think us quirky, and give the article less credence as a result.Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There is something to be said for allowing this discussion. Consensus can change and it is always worth allowing newer users to see how the wiki-discussion process works. What I would personally like to bring to the discussion is the principle of verifiability. That is to say, we include information in Wikipedia, not because we believe (or want) it to be true, but because it has been published by reliable sources, which readers can verify for themselves. In the case of Obama's ethnic background, I suspect that a quick straw poll of available sources would produce fairly strong support for one viewpoint, although worded differently depending on origin: most US sources will refer to him as African American, and most sources from outside the US, as black. Since he's a US citizen, then, it seems that "African American" is the best term to use. Since this is his biography, of course, we can document his parents' ethnic backgrounds too, and readers come to their own conclusions about his ethnicity. What we must not do, in my opinion, is engage in original research, that is, using unpublished information that we personally know - perhaps in combination with a quick look at a dictionary and a bit of logical deduction - to arrive at a different conclusion to our sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of reliable sources that say he is bi-racial. Again, I have to keep saying this over and over. I'm not suggesting African American be removed, I'm asking for bi-racial to be incorporated into the lead. Dozens say bi-racial and hundreds upon hundreds say he is from a white mother and black father, bi-racial is not OR it's a fact. Landon1980 (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of reliable sources that say he is African American. I know you're not saying African American should be removed, but please consider how much weight we should give each description. --GoodDamon 19:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of sources documenting his heritage. But when talking about what should go into the first sentence, we are by definition looking for the most succinct, brief, terse, accurate summary of the man - according, of course, to the sources. In other words, we're looking for good headline material. Now, I've never seen a headline saying he was multi-racial, or bi-racial, or of mixed descent. The only headlines I've seen that mention his ethnicity describe his as black or African American. I appreciate that for Landon1980, this aspect of Obama is very important, but for the majority of sources, it simply doesn't seem to be. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking through past discussions on this, and it seems like this one is heading down the same road. No one is questioning the sources that say Obama is bi-racial. He even joked about it himself the other day with the "mutt" comment. The issue here is what do the majority of sources, popular media and reporting outlets and so on refer to him as? "The first African-American such-and-such..." has been talked to death by the media, and thus is what he is most recognized as being. As much as it is a fact that he is bi-racial, it just doesn't cut very far into the general Obama chatter. Tarc (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has, and it is in the lead sentence. Bi-racial is a verifiable fact and if would stop all this drama why not. Not a single policy prohibits bi-racialbeing incorporated into the lead, not the first one. If this is settled it would be beneficial to the project. As of now hundreds of people are complaining. Landon1980 (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reject -- Verifiability, not "truth". The overwhelmingly vast majority of RS's say simply that he is African American. The press appears to be applying the label correctly (from the perspective of the US Government), see here: African_American#Who_is_African_American.3F. We accurately describe Obama's heritage and parents in the appropriate section -- it is inappropriate to try to discuss "how african american is he?" in the lead per WP:BLP. If reliable sources shift to generally calling him bi-racial, then we can revisit this. --guyzero | talk 20:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this going anywhere, an RFC is more appropriate. This will be closed prematurely, cut out by the bot. A staggering number of people have suggested bi-racial be incorporated somehow. Bi-racial is a very important aspect of Obama. All you need is one reliable source and there are hundreds. It is a very small addition and takes up hardly no room at all, it does not pick sides it is very neutral, as it should be. If all the editors that did a drive by comment regarding thios were copmpared against the regulars consenses would likely be different. Landon1980 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not the size of the addition ("very small") that matters, but the weight. Reliable sources agree that the "African-American" aspect is vastly more significant than the bi-racial aspect. Even the "very small" mention you seek would elevate its importance beyond what can be considered reasonable. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you or someone else please clarify your position on the undue weight problem? That is, is it a mention anywhere in the article, anwhere in the lead, or in the same sentence as "African American" that causes the weight problem?--Tznkai (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Relatively speaking, few reliable sources give prominence to Obama's bi-racial status. In contrast, an enormous number discuss the significance of him being an African-American. As such, it would seem that directly mentioning the bi-racial aspect in the lead (whether or not it is in conjunction with "African-American") would give it undue weight. The bi-racial component can already be inferred from the information about Obama's parents in the body of the article, and I believe this already ascribes appropriate weight to this aspect. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reject as not fitting the sources, there would need to be a tremendous stress on his bi-racialism outside of wikipedia to even consider this. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If I have time today I'll gather all the names of editors that have had concerns about this just to get an idea of where consensus is. No one has exactly pointed out how incorporating the small word bi-racial into the lead would be harmful, it is verifiable has nothing to do with the truth. It only takes one source for something to be added. Addind the word bi-racial would benefit the article in the long run because it would help everyone move forward and stop some of the complaints. African American would still be dominant in the lead and be given due weight. I realize that more sorces support AA and that's why it doesn't say first bi-racial president. Landon1980 (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When determining consensus, it is necessary to consider not just the number of editors supporting any particular position, but also the strength of their arguments in relation to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Having said that, this discussion seems to have gone the way of many others, in that it seems to be resolving into a disagreement about what constitutes due weight for a particular viewpoint. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) There are tons of sources, verifiable and reliable, that talk about Obama being bi-racial. There are many, many more that talk about him as either "black" or "african american". The problem with much of the discussion above is that people don't seem to recognize that the terms are not mutually exclusive. Having said that, I don't have a big problem with the article as it is now, but I wouldn't mind seeing the fact (from reliable, verifiable sources) that he is bi-racial mentioned in the lead. This could be done in numerous ways and, quite honestly, I don't see the big deal as long as we don't succumb to the odd contingent of people who want to delete "african american" all together.LedRush (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, African American most certainly does not need removed for tons of reasons. Landon1980 (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would totally agree with he being mentioned as bi-racial in the lead. It's clear, the truth, and non-biased as you can get. In addition, LedRush is correct there are so many reliable sources that state bi-racial it would not be a problem. There is clear favortism to just calling him African American which is wrong it would be no different than only wanting Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, Alicia Keys, Ne-yo, and so many others only African American when they are not.Mcelite (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the lead could say something like "Although Obama is from a multiracial background, the majority of press coverage describes him as African-American." Maybe? I've watched this debate from the sidelines and I hope there can be some agreement. LovesMacs (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like original research, LovesMacs, and definitely should not be included. I strongly disagree that calling him bi-racial in the lead is NPOV, I would describe it as strongly POV. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe saying that the media refers to him as "african american" is original reserch. It can be well cited as well. However, my problem with the above formulation is that it implies that he's not african american, but that the media calls him that. He clearly is african american, just as clearly as he is bi-racial. As I said above, the terms aren't mutually exclusive.LedRush (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my concern as well: how could you prove that the majority of press coverage describes him that way? You couldn't. Oh well. I tried. I don't have strong feelings about the issue anyway. LovesMacs (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can get a source that the majority of the media we can include that but nowhere near the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would leave the beginning of the lead alone, and add something like this in the later section (most of this already appears):

"On February 10, 2007, he announced his candidacy for President of the United States, and on June 3, 2008, he was named the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party after a 17-month-long primary campaign, becoming the first bi-racial candidate nominated for the presidency from a major political party."

We could also do it in the president-elect stage, saying

"On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain and became the first African American, and the first bi-racial candidate, to be elected President of the United States."LedRush (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as we can source that he is considered bi-racial then including this in the bulk of the article is perfectly acceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why I said not to say "considered African American" by the press because he is African American, and he is white, and he is bi-racial. Obama being bi-racial has gotten tons and tons of media coverage, they may call him the first African American President, but at the same time most of the same sources have referred to him as bi-racial. The lead sentence should be "with a bi-racial background he is the first African American Presiedent" or something similar. That sentence is as unbiased as you could possibly get, it doesn't pick sides, it is verifiable, and would very likely stop a lot of the fuss about the race issue. Landon1980 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is this "tons and tons of media coverage"? --guyzero | talk 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally dig that you are looking for a compromise, but the problem with this idea is that very few (in comparison) sources refer to him as "bi-racial" anything. AA is 100% accurate and the term used by the vast majority (99%+) of reliable sources to describe him, his nomination and candidacy, his president-elect status, etc. His heritage is accurately described in the Early Life section. --guyzero | talk 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well here are 10 pages of them, and hundreds more describe him as having an African father and a white American mother. Landon1980 (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon1980 says: "he is African American, and he is white, and he is bi-racial."

Do you have any reliable sources that refer to him as "white"? You have stated this several times, so I am curious. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of comment that bothers me. Are you suggesting that African blood cancels out white? I can give you few hundred sources that say he was born to a white woman if you'd like. Half African makes him African, half black makes him black, but white is cancelled out by everything I guess. It is obviously the weakest blood there is. The man is 50% white, I could give you a genetics lesson that would even further strengthen my point. Landon1980 (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem, then let me help out and restate what Scjessy asked. While there are lots of RS that says he's half white, please list a couple RS that calls him something completely other then African American and Bi-Racial. Brothejr (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The one drop theory does precisely do what you say, Landon, one drop of black blood makes for not being white whereas one drop of white blood certainyl does not make for not being black. If you have issues with this and thinkl it is wrong you need to go to a forum or start a blog etc, but we at wikipedia need to concentrate on building an article based on reliable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, provide a reliable source backing your theory please. It is a shame that it is ok for you to say that to me. I'm going to try and ignore you so just drop it please. Landon1980 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We cover this at One-drop rule, its not something I agree with but it does still apply in practice in any ways. I doubt if there are many truly African heritage people living in the US or Latin America/the Caribbean but people will a significant African heritage are still called black. My wiofe has white ancestors but nobody would call her white. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "bi-racial"

While I am also sympathetic politically with the "bi-racial" label, it really isn't workable to include in this article. The main issue, as many editors have mentioned, is that we need to rely on what the bulk of reliable sources say. Yes, hundred of sources have mentioned "bi-racial", but hundreds of thousands of sources mention "African American".

As well, "bi-racial" is too slippery. How many races are there exactly? Why does Obama have two of them, but not three or seven of them? For example, there is a semi-verifiable claim about him having Native American ancestors. Would he then be tri-racial. Or there is what might be just rumor, but might be true, of Arab ancestors also. Quad-racial?! Is Arab a "race"? As with anyone, if you dig a bit deeper into genealogy, you'll find other groups too, after all. Just about anyone alive now has some Mongols in their "heritage", for example (big empire, that). Are all Europeans one "race" (they certainly weren't so 150 years ago)? Are all Africans so? Too much of a quagmire here. LotLE×talk 21:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Solving that would be as simple as explaining briefly how he is bi-racial. Landon1980 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What part of "born ... to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, a white American from Wichita, Kansas" doesn't indicate bi-racial?? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 21:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus it is covered in the early life section and child article.Brothejr (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A related matter which I find even more interesting is that Obama's father was not an American citizen. I have a hunch that Obama may not be the first President of whom that was true, but it has definitely been a very long while since we had one with a non-American parent. Of course, how much significant I assign to that (relative) novelty doesn't count for anything in this article. That said, we do and should mention that his non-American parent happened to be Kenyan (and that his American parent happened to be European/white-American). LotLE×talk 21:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Also, Obama is known as of having two because it is a well known fact that he had a white mother and a black father. We are all most likely mixed up somewhere down the lines, but his mother identified as white and father as African. Landon1980 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) One thing that has been completely and purposely ignored by those pushing for bi-racial is what Obama thinks of himself. While he has acknowledged his bi-racial background and has occasionally joked at being a mutt, for the majority of his life (with millions of RS backing it up) he has considered himself African American. Let me say that again, he self identifies as African American. Wikipedia is not in the business to purposely go out and identify someone other then what they themselves identify as, as long as it is verifiable and accurate. Calling him African American is accurate and in line with what Barack Obama thinks of himself. If you doubt that, then read some of his books and read the millions of RS that cover him as African American. Plus also, we must consider that this is only about the lead. While the term African American is used in the lead, his bi-racial background is fully covered both in the early life section and the child article. So it would be in line with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and just about any other policy to use the term Obama self identifies as (I.E. African American) in the lead. Brothejr (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Preach on, Brothejr man. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To be incredibly snarky for a moment, George Washington was the first president not to be born of an American citizen.--Tznkai (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilson's mother was Scottish, though I would assume she eventually was a US citizen. And there was the argument that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is any consolation here but over at Roman Catholic Church article, we had a long drawn out argument just like this one over the use of the word "official" in the lead sentence (conversation recently archived). We finally solved it by holding a vote between two different sentences and it revealed overwhelming consensus for one sentence over the other. NancyHeise ^talk 21:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• To describe President Elect Obama, as "African American" is misleading, as we understand the phrase to be. He is half black and half white.

To be more specific he is black African/White American. That is not the term I or most others (?) would understand from the term "African American" for his mother was white Irish English. He is an American of both black and white descent ?

(These terms are used to polarize the issues...we have the same problem in Canada...)

So we need a better term, we are generalizing by calling him what we are.

This is an important distinction, because already we have some who are calling him a 'Black President'...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that say "African American" or "black" are misleading terms? If not, it's going to be difficult to justify changing the article content based on that assertion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So nice to see that consensus is once again going to be decided in a coiple hour time frame, discussion closed and a prohibited topic of discussion. The dozens upon dozens, and hundred s a month of editors can be sent to the FAQ's as always. Landon1980 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Who says the discussion's gong to be closed quickly, other than you? Why not just try to discuss it constructively, with reference to wikipedia policies and guidelines? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The best predictor of the future is the past. The vote below supports everyone picking African American, of course they will pick that out of anything else. Leaving consensus as is will solve absolutely nothing. The fact is that this is a major issue that should be addresses properly. Speaking of policy, does a policy prohibit what I have proposed. I don't see why no one on this side of things are willing to budge. According to NPOV neutral ground should be found, especially something as sensitive as race. Saying he comes from a bi-racial background says only that. My proposal clearly calls him African American in the very first sentence. Due weight is being given to AA but not bi-racial. I can't find anywhere that says if a 1000 sources say African American and only 500 say bi-racial that bi-racial must be excluded. Hundreds upon hundreds of sources say he is half and half. It is not neutral to exclude bi-racial from the lead and a lot of people are offended by it. Landon1980 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing to debate here. His mother is White and his father is Black. He is bi-racial genetically. It doesn't matter what sources say. It will not change this simple genetic fact. Labelling him "African American" denies the racial identity of every mixed racial person on the planet. Nor does "African American" fit. He is not the decendent of American slaves. If this "encyclopedia" is ever going to have any validity, it has to deal with facts. Not opinion.Dauerad (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"There is nothing to debate here."

If so why is there a debate? But if you think so there is no sense in you keeping debating [talking your words for granted].

"He is not the descendent of American slaves."

African Americans don't have to be descended of African slaves. This is a common misunderstanding.

"...denies the racial identity of every mixed racial person on the planet."

Not here in the US and he is a "descendent" of American culture. In fact, so God will he'll be our next President and we came a long way to such being possible, even to be imagined. If it hurts your personal feeling, to bad and I apologize for it as an American citizen but there is nothing else I can do for you without bending the facts. Please don't take offense in what I said; it's not meant this way--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

Nancy brings up an excellent suggestion. Yes, we all know that voting is evil, and is not a substitute for discussion, but endless discussion is getting us no where. So let's see what everyone thinks:

What words should be used to describe Obama's ethnicity in the lead sentences?

(If you vote for more than one, please indicate which is your first choice, second, etc.

African-American

1. Definitely. Every time I have seen Obama's ethnic background mentioned in the news, he has been referred to as African-American at least once, and he himself refers to himself as African American. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Definitely per overwhelming number of RS who label him as AA. --guyzero | talk 22:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
3. As I've said above, this and "black" - the two non-mixed-race options - are used by the majority of sources. Some sources go into more detail about ethnicity - and so can we - but this is what reliable sources choose to use for headline material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
4. My evil deed of the day. AA, until "mutt" gets more traction. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
5. “I’m here because somebody marched. I’m here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants.” — Barack Obama, 2007 Selma Voting Rights March Commemoration. It is quite clear that the man self-identifies primarily as African-American or black, and the preponderance of reliable sources follow suit. This really seems like much ado about nothing. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
6. I'm going with African American baised on what I said below and in the past. He self identifies as African American. Brothejr (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Whatever I might personally feel about how we ought to describe ethnicities, the overwhelming majority of reliable source use AA, and only a small fraction use other terms. LotLE×talk 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
8. African American, of course. I don't even think this is an issue really, but some people are trying to make it into one. MFlet1 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
9. I'm irate that it's come to this. This is pathetic. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Ah, semantics. If I practice a naive form of semantics, and only parse the term as the mere compound of two words, I might say Obama is more of an "African-American" than most people who self-identify that way, since he actually is only one generation removed from a real honest-to-gosh African. However, when the term was coined, African-American was mostly meant to denote a distinct cultural/ethnic group descended from American slaves, which does not really describe Obama's heritage. But then, as phrases do, it evolved. But wait -- today, I think "African-American" is clearly meant to describe any American whom most people would consider to be "black", and for unfortunate and despicable historical reasons, the vast majority of people would consider Obama to be "black". Hence, in a very messy roundabout way, it winds up being an accurate term, at least in the way most people understand it. Hmmm, maybe someday, my children's children's children will find this entire discussion rather quaint and puzzling. One can only hope... --Jaysweet (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
11. Yes, but lose the hyphen please. There was a discussion about that too. I'm not terribly averse to a more prominent mention that he is biracial, but want to make sure that his main "first" and his primary racial/ethnic identity, based on his self-identification and the sources as they exist today, is AA. That could all change in a few years. Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Absolutely, defined as such by self and other, self evident from African American. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Yes. In the lead, go with what the predominant sources say. The body of the article explains his ethnic background in full detail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
14. Absolutely. This is the most common term used, this is the term used by the man himself and the use of the term is consistent with the use of other "Fooian American" terms (e.g. "Irish Americans" who have only a small portion of Irish ancestry). And crucially this is also the term used for the first senator, the first governor, the first Vice Presidential candidate and the first person to be invited to dine at the White House from this grouping when they all had white ancestry. "African American" is not a scientific biological term, it is a cultural term describing a group of people with various social, cultural, historical and physical characteristics in common. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
15. Although technically bi-racial, virtually every source cites him as "African-american" or "Black". Bearian (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
16. Of course. This is the only term that is used overwhelmingly in sources and the media to describe him. When he was elected, the Chicago Tribune and New York Times, to name a couple prominent ones, hailed him as the first black or African-American president-elect.[4][5]. That is what we must go on, not "The Truth". Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
17. Definitely. The lead should remain as it is. As I alluded to earlier, most reliable sources refer to the historical significance of an African American becoming POTUS, rather than anything else. Black presidents are common around the world, but there has never been an African American president before. The multi-racial aspect receives plenty of attention in the body of the article, and in child articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
18. Absolutely. This is beginning to look like overwhelming consensus. --GoodDamon 00:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
19. Yes. His father was African; his mother was American. How much more African-American can one get? He's probably one of the few that the label of "African-American" literally applies to... am I the only one that feels that even arguning this is rediculous?! 24.8.252.164 (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
20. I didn't change my mind on this for almost 2 years and I won't change it now since there are no new arguments, just spin-offs of the same.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
21. Yes. In the United States, a large percentage of those described as "African Americans" have some degree of white ancestery and thus could properly be considered mixed race, Obama included. Most of them (although not Obama) also are hundreds of years removed from the ancestors who actually lived there. To be blunt and impolitic about it, in the US, 'African American' is the commonly used synonym for 'Person of recognizable Black African ancestory' (the polite synonym, that is), and by this standard Obama clearly qualifies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdrasin (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

African-American, but adhere to WP:ASF

1. WP:ASF, for the n-th time now. Yes yes, keep African American as the most widely used term, but don't assert it as fact. As to anything else, I'm largely indifferent. See here for how it should be done.Everyme 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Black

1. "African-American is a stupid PC word used by people who somehow think "black" is offensive. I don't call white people "European-Americans" either. Nar Matteru (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: We call white people "Caucasians". *smile*--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I Don't. Nar Matteru (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Other/some combination of various terms (please explain)

1. Obviously He is obviously african american. He is obviously bi-racial. Hundreds of thousands sources back both statements (admittedly many more for the former) and there is no reason that Wiipedia shouldn't make an article as accurate as possible, while avoiding misleading statements. The language could be clear, short, simple, and non-controversial and would end this discussion forever.LedRush (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
2. I vote for African-American instead of Black-American. Black was the term coined by White-Americans to group all people taken from Africa as slaves despite them sharing many different ethnicities. Barack Obama on the other hand lays claim to a specific African ancestry (the Luo of Kenya). That being said, I think African-American is more accurate. The term African-American is also applied to Black-Americans, the group with which Obama seems to identify with most (look who he married). As far as him being bi-racial, that should definately be mentioned (but maybe not in the lead since he is not the first bi-racial president).
3. The current introduction is fine, but I don't think it would hurt to mention in passing Obama's mixed heritage (not the best way to put it but that's all I can think of right now). Like LedRush, I don't see multiracial and African American as being mutually exclusive. The first description I think of when thinking of Obama in racial terms is African-American, even though I know that is a simplification. In one sense, all racial labels are simplifications. Perhaps the first paragraph could say something like "The ethnically diverse Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States." That may be putting too much emphasis on Obama as multiracial; I don't know. I don't have very strong feelings on how Obama should be described, and I just wish the arguing would stop. LovesMacs (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
4. this straw-poll is silly. It's a non-issue. Obama self-identifies as African-American, hence he is an African American. Obama also has a black father and a white mother, hence he de facto is of bi-racial ancestry. Mention both facts and be done. Background info: Multiracial_American#African_Americans. For the lead, it is enough to state he is the first non-white president, which is what is truly notable here. Bickering over which shade of color we are looking at can go to the article body. Of course, in time, we will have a full-blown Barack Obama and race article. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More discussion

Hopefully, this will get us somewhere, because looking at the entire discussion, I honestly do not know what the opinions of several users are. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I share your thoughts, but I would like to leave no possible doubts. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The question should be who objects to a more neutral sentence such as "from a bi-racial background he is the first African American president." Not one single policy prohibits that, this discussion is brought up on a daily basis. Leaving it as is solves nothing. The issue was raised in 20 different threads this week alone. African American is given due weight, but so should bi-racial, hundreds of sources verify it. Landon1980 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the question being debated is exactly what I wrote. This is not a binding poll. The impression I am getting is that you are largely the only person who objects to the current wording. But I was not sure, which is why I created the poll. You are welcome to add your vote or not; as I said, this poll is not binding. It is merely to try to objectively gauge who has which opinion. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are under the impression that I'm the only person that thinks bi-racial should be added then you should take the time to look through the history. The issue was raised in more than 20 threads in five days alone. The first time I addressed the issue was yesterday. Depending on how far you wish to go back I can flood the page with hundreds of people who think the lead should and could while still conforming to policies be more neutral. Landon1980 (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't an issue to you, go back through the history, hundreds of people have said different. Leaving it as is solves nothing, multiple threads will be started weekly. Everyone is conveniently ignoring that he could be called African American in the lead while at the same time saying he comes from a bi-racial background. Landon1980 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ethnically diverse African-American. That sounds pretty good to me. In reality though, he's probably a "black American", or "African American". However, that's only because "we" make reality. Not logic, not reason, not science, but people. Unfortunately, even though black+white=black doesn't make sense mathematically, a universal biased notion of race is present in not just our culture, but humanity as a whole, that can't be overcome just yet. Perhaps once enlightenment has taken full effect on humanity, we can update the article appropriately, until then, +1 for African American. Digital^Ninja 23:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

don't be boxed in to believing the terms are mutually exclusive. Race is a fuzzy concept to begin with, and people with mixed backgrounds are even fuzzier. Falling into the trap of believing the terms are exclusive is inventing clarity where it doesn't exist.LedRush (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me the down side to using a combination of terms?

Please don't rely on the common Wikipedia fallacy of selective google hits (surely there are many, many more hits for Obama as an african american, but there are hundreds of thousands of hits for (Obama and "white mother"....not just hundreds for one way to phrase the term)). I feel that this argument is important, but it doesn't even come close to outweighing the other factors (accuracy, not misleading, the role of an encyclopdia) so I am wondering about other reasons that a short, non-controversial, and accurate use of "bi-racial" can't be used with a more prominent use of "african american".LedRush (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)#

One potential problem

TIME magazine: Is Obama black enough?

It seems that attempts to use Obama's racial heritage against him are not new. (This article is from 2007). Wikipedia is not a battleground but it seems that this issue may be one on which multiple editors do feel the need to battle. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Note the "Obama is biracial" in the article. What exactly are the negative effects of using a combination of terms with African American as the dominant one? If soemthing doesn't change the issue will only be raised again and again and again. Landon1980 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "battle" concept. Before the election people would try to argue that he wasn't african american as a way of attacking him, but no one is suggesting that here. People are suggesting that accuracy and truth, when properly cited by hundreds of thousands of sources, is better than a misleading truth which leaves out some of the story. Quite honestly, I haven't heard one good argument against a combination of terms...I feel it's a hold over from the pre-election attacks on this article. But, there could be something I'm missing...LedRush (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a question of positivity or negativity. Please stop arguing against points that no one is making, and please don't make assertions that you'll just keep trying til you get your way (i.e. "the issue will only be raised again and again "). It is a question of what Obama is commonly referred to as; a "bi-racial African-American president" or simply an "African-American president". I believe the evidence lies squarely on the latter. Tarc (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you've become so hostile, but just above SheffieldSteel cited the WP is not a Battlegroud idea. I responded and asked if someone could make an argument for non-inclusion (the only I've seen is unconvincing to me and based on a false premise, IMHO). I suggested that perhaps the opinion is a hold over from when people would attack Obama by arguing he wasn't black (a stupid argument that rightly lost). I don't know why you've ignored the substance of my statements, misstated what I said, and then attacking a straw man with vitriol. I hope you can calm down and try to engage in this discussion constructively.LedRush (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, I am anything but hostile. But I do take mischaracterized arguments rather seriously. There's alot of emotions and eDrama getting introduced here, when it is really just a simple matter of consensus and sourcing. The description of Barack Obama as a "biracial African-American" simply doesn't carry water, as it is not a term or phrasing in common usage either by the name himself or by reliable sources. It simply is not that important to note. Tarc (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You were indeed hostile. Also, it is you who has mischaracterized my arguments, at least twice now (including above). At least you have been polite while completely ignoring my points this time. For that, I thank you.LedRush (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeating a lie will not make it magically come true. I'm quite in touch with my own emotional state; you are not. So when I say "I am not feeling X", then that's all there is to it. What I have pointed out is that we have some fairly straightforward policy here, and it is clearly against your position. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe evidence lies squarely on the former. Digital^Ninja 23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on actually reading what I said. I'm referring to the issue being raised again and again like it has been for years. I first spoke on the matter yesterday. I never said I was going to raise it again. It would appear that in the past month more people question the neutrality than are against a combination of terms. My point is the issue will be raised very frequently. Landon1980 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you said, it's a valid argument and I was acknowledging it. We need to fix it right the first time. I just hope we fix it in the most accurate manner... Digital^Ninja 01:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding my point, but that comment was not intended for you, DigitalNinja. Landon1980 (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate trying to follow conversation on this take page ;-D Digital^Ninja 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we just say that Obama is a dark skinned American of origins which include but not limited to Africa, The United States, Native Americans, Bard Pitt, Madonna, Silvester Stallone, and Worf from the Romulan Empire. This product may contain milk or soy and has been processed on machines that process tree nuts. This way everyone is happy :-D Digital^Ninja 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The policy argument against a combination of terms in the lead is here: WP:DUE. The consensus is currently that "African American" is the best term to use in the lead sentence. No one (as far as I know) is arguing that the terms "bi-racial" and "mixed race" cannot be included in the article. One editor has made the point that, per WP:NPOV#A simple formulation, we should not describe Obama as African American, but report that sources have described him as such. Does that sum it up so far? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that "sources have described him" is a text book example of Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Examples. Digital^Ninja 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem I had with the straw poll...we didn't include an option to just put the biracial language later, like I suggested above.LedRush (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that would be fine with me. Due weight does not prohibit biracial from being in the lead. Due weight is given by merely saying he is from a bi-racial background, your not saying he is "bi-racial x or y, but his background is. If we were to just stop the discussion and look for a remedy in policies neutral ground would be found. There are conflicting sources, sources for both can be found in great number. Incorporating bi-racial into the lead would benefit the encyclopedia in the long run by ending the never ending discussion. Saying he is the first African American President only tells half the story. Due weight should be given to bi-racial, African American could still be the primary defining term in the lead. Most of are acting like we must pick between the two and leave out the other. I've yet to see a compelling argument of why a combination could not be used. Landon1980 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

From above: We could also do it in the president-elect stage, saying "On November 4, 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain and became the first African American, and the first bi-racial candidate, to be elected President of the United States."LedRush (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Those of you already claiming overwhelming consensus should give others time to comment. The problem every time is for the most part the consensus is from people that frequent this article and have it watchlisted. You are not even considering the respose we are getting from our readers. A lot of the questions about his race are from new and anon users. It is impossible to say consensus is either way as of now. I could dig up 30, 40 people that have said different in just the past week. Landon1980 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I also want everyone to ask themselves if Obama self-identified as Caucasian, and the majority of sources called him white, but dozens upon dozens of reliable sources could be found saying he was bi-racial would the consensus be the same as the current one? Landon1980 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question, but I don't even accept the premise. Obama self identifies both as African American and as someone of a mixed-race background. People are using the argument against removing "african american" from the article against a proposal that wants no such thing.LedRush (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather spend time on the situation at hand rather than imaginary "what-ifs", honestly. Tarc (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So stop answering hypos and start answering what we say.LedRush (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well I already know the answer. By the way, no one ever suggested he be called a "biracial African American" you conveniently twist it around to make a mockery of it. This article sees a lot of firsts and policies are largely ignored and as highly prasied as Obama is right now that isn't a good thing. For one, don't all the other Presidents articles list their full name in the infobox? I'm not calling anyone biased but everyone should ask themselves what the true reason they oppose the lead even entertaining the spirit of WP:NPOV is. Landon1980 (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If Landon and Led would actually read what my poll was for, it would greatly aid everything. I wanted to know what people thought that FIRST FEW SENTENCES SHOULD SAY. I did not mention any of the rest of the article, or even the rest of the lead. Jesus, if you would stop assuming what I am saying and actually READ it, none of this last 20 or 30 KB of text would have been necessary. Also, I did not intend for the poll to end at any specific time. I was kind of thinking something like 72 hours, but I am not averse to keeping open for longer or closing it early. I also note that you inexplicably refuse to voice your opinion in the straw poll, instead continuing on and on with your random babbling. This issue has utterly nothing to do with NPOV, because 1) the present version of the article is not referring to Obama by a term that he himself does not use and 2) the present version is backed up by thousands, perhaps millions of sources, while "bi-racial" is used far, far, far less frequently. Regardless of all that, I made an attempt to objectively prove to you that your opinion is in the minority, and you do not even bother to "officially" state your own views and you have the audacity to say that there are plenty of people who support your view. Simple question: Where are they? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please try and engage in the discussion with honesty and not with anger. You have dramatically misrepresented my position and ignored my points. If you don't want to constructively engage in discussion, I guess there's nothing I can do. As I've stated many times above: 1. I don't think the article is bad as is; 2. it could be better with the addition of some mention of his status as biracial (or another such description) EITHER in the lead OR in the main article (as suggested many other places); 3. no one wants to replace the term african american...no one; 4. Obama identifies both as an African american and as a person of mixed descent; 5. being biracial and african american are not mutually exclusive.

If you'd like to respond to these points, I will treat you and your arguments with the respect everyone deserves. If not, there is still nothing I can do...I can't force my opinions on others, but I won't allow my positions to be misrepresented without presenting my side.LedRush (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You sure have a short temper for an administrator. You could at least be civil, would that be that hard to do? Since self-identification keeps being mentioned you should know that Obama identifies as both. Does it really matter what he self-identifies as anyways? We know that he is technically bi-racial and a large number of sources can be found that verifies just that. Hundreds if not thgousands say that his father is African and mother a white American. I read your proposal J, and I apologize for my babbling as you consider my comments. You have no idea what my position would be if the straw poll turned out different. I will not resort to return the favor of screaming in all caps and bold as I find it harmful to the discussion. You could at least be civil in expressing your issues with me. Landon1980 (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please Landon, the "I'm the victim" ploy is bullshit. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't aware I was playing victim and thank you for informing me. I really don't think asking an administrator to remain civil is too much to ask. This discussion is becoming increasingly directed at me instead of the real issue here. Landon1980 (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are damn right I have a short temper. Especially when, at midnight, in the middle of trying to do three assignments for college, I am dealing with people who can't see their nose in front of their faces. For crying out loud. How many times, and in how may ways do we have to tell you that your opinion is just that: your opinion, and that it is overwhelmingly obvious that the majority of editors do not agree with you? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And don't give me the whole "remain civil" crap. According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary: "civil often suggests little more than the avoidance of overt rudeness <owed the questioner a civil reply>". Please. If I was really uncivil, believe me, you would know it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't guess it really matters if you are civil or not. I apologize for inconveniencing you late at night. I had no intention of causing you or anyone else to have such a poor perception of me as an individual, and mental abilities. Contrary to your assertion, I am not the only person that shares my opinion. You really should take the time to look at the history. Landon1980 (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should just say he's an American with a tan. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you could say what Archie Bunker once said about Harry Belafonte: "He ain't black, he's a good-lookin' white guy dipped in caramel." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we not incorporate both African-American and Bi racial at the same time? In the starting column a more reasonable way would be to simply say he is a President with both African and American 'origins'? It would clearly indicate there is two "race" which maks Barack Obama rather than the actual term "African American" which surely applies more naturalisation? Surely you can see reason with that Landon. Cant compromise work in this situation?!CorrectlyContentious (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1. WP:NPOV "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This most certainly is not being done. The word bi-racial is not even in the article once, it appears once in the notes. Also, everyone points out NPOV does not apply because Obama self-identifies as African American. I can't find anything in this policy or BLP that says article's must be centered around the wishes of the subject. Even so, Obama identifies as both. This is an encyclopedia, this is not about what Obama wants. Our job is to say what reliable sources do and a larg number of without a doubt reliable sources can be found for the single term bi-racial, hundreds for "Obama white mother" several more from multi-racial, and so on. I realize that AA must be given due weight, but so should bi-racial. I know everyone despises me on this talk page and could care less. All of you know in your hearts that I'm making valid points. Everyone chooses to ignore policy when writing this article. You people actually grasps at straws trying your best to come up with why/how policy prohibits bi-racial from being in the lead sentence. When in fact it does no such thing, AA can be given due weight while still incorporating bi-racial into the lead. The terms do not have to be side by side. All of you are too worried about what Obama wants to actually care about the neutrality of the article. A lot of you seem to think that I am the only reason this issue will not go away. In the last couple years, even months, this issue has been raised hundreds and hundreds of times. I think it is mostly the readers and new users that complain but does that matter? I hope all of you that aren't willing to compromise are willing to be back here when someone wants to discuss this again. This can't be something that is erased from the talk page when two dozen threads in 5 days are started on the issue. If I gathered the names and IP's that have mentioned this just in the last month it would tower over the straw poll. Landon1980 (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speculate about the motivation of other editors, and please don't accuse other editors of ignoring policy. Other editors aren't ignoring policy, but interpreting it differently to you. If anything, it is the "hundreds and hundreds" of "names and IPS" that are ignoring policy. They, while undoubtedly well-meaning, tend to make arguments based on The Truth, not on verifiability, neutrality, or due weight. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon, all is fair in what you say but surely it wouldve been changed by now should the evidence be outstanding for bi-racial to be included. I also understand that you must not tolerate to refer to Obama as simply what he describes himself(A very valid point as this is not politics nor distortion of facts). Yet again why cant we just say of origins of both race as i mentioned above, as its pretty much the same as bi-racial yet is clearly highlighting the background from a neutral point of view! Oh dear Landon, CorrectlyContentious (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems this discussion has gone straight down the toilet. For what it's worth, I still think we should just refer to him as an African American since that is what everyone else, including himself, does. On a side note, not only does Santa know when your asleep or awake, but he also knows what you post on Wikipedia. So, unless you have an efficient pellet burning stove that accepts coal as well, chill. Digital^Ninja 18:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Change Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States to News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States Let the lead sentence use the term "African American" since that is a factual and neutral statement of the viewpoint held by most of the reliable sources (strictly speaking, the form of the viewpoint that's politically correct in the US), and since consensus supports this term. Later in the body of the article, include the terms bi-racial and/or mixed race, depending on the available sources and consensus (discussion to follow).

Of course, this isn't going to stop hordes of editors starting new threads asking why the first sentence describes Obama the same way that the majority of our sources do. That should be an opportunity to explain our cornerstone policies WP:V and WP:NPOV - not circumvent them. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree A good compromise.LedRush (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• oppose The lead should not use weasel words...everyone knows Obama is african american. The new proposal is not a good compromise and has no chance of convincing a consensus. I wish we'd stick to proposals with a moderate change of approval.LedRush (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weasel words?? Please re-read WP:WEASEL and explain how exactly it's weaselly to state the obvious and relevant in a concise way. Everyme 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support Oppose in favour of actually adhering to WP:ASF and WP:V: News media widely refer to Obama, who is of mixed heritage, as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. Everyme 16:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How about: Obama, who is of mixed heritage, is widely recognized as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me as well. Everyme 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you change your vote above to agree?LedRush (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Which exact wording are we talking about? News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. ? Everyme 19:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer the original suggestion in this sub-thread above. (Isn't that the way it is now?) But, as SheffieldSteel points out, "this isn't going to stop hordes of editors starting new threads asking why the first sentence describes Obama the same way that the majority of our sources do." Or the constant changes back and forth. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Evb-wiki's suggestion reminds me of my own suggestion from earlier, which seems to have been lost in all the text: "The ethnically diverse Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States." LovesMacs (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I like that even better. Although the inclusion of "widely recognized as" may, by acknowleging the dispute/question/issue, help deter "clarifying" edits. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the proposal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind repeating your proposed wording here, just for convenience and clarity? Everyme 19:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose SheffieldSteel's proposal. With respect, I don't think so. There are some instances where a compromise like that would be proper but this ain't one of them.Feel free to add more details (besides "News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American") in the mainbody of the article but not in the first paragraph of the lead. "Later in the body of the article, include the terms bi-racial and/or mixed race..." is what I think is suitable and non-challenged.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So the News media refer to part is wrong inhowfar? Everyme 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

However, just stating African American in the lead is not neutral it shows favortism especially for those whom only want Barak Obama to only be described as an African American. That's wrong and it seems to hard just to get that simple point of view across. It's the 21st centuary Obama is bi-racial let's upgrade and have bi-racial in the lead or say he is of African American descent (I would settle for that).Mcelite (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't show "favoritism" but your comment shows "favoritism" and disregard on the opposite side (even to African Americans view) as you state "especially for those whom only want Barack Obama to only be described as an African American". We don't want to describe him "only" [what does that actually imply?] as African American. Just at the main parts of the article such as the lead. Do you actually realize, as much good as you want to do, that you're demising African Americans and possibly might hurt their pride?

I'm sure you're intentions are in good faith but their effect might me quite the opposite.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm implying that this is the exact results caused by the One Drop Rule. I do mean very good faith. From what you're implying The Magnificent Clean-keeper you are African American or at least part and you're saying it would hurt people's feelings if African American isn't said. Why not first bi-racial president of African American descent?? It's the full truth nobody is being left out, and it goes against the negativity of the one drop rule which is definately what's fulling this whole situation. There are so many other people whom are part African American and something else: Aaliyah, Halley Berry, Oprah, Alicia Keys, Chilli and T-Boz from TLC, Beyonce Knowles, Lena Horne, Chris Tucker, Amil, LL Cool J, Jimi Hendrix and so many others. I believe if they had won the presidency this same issue would be a big mess like it is now.Mcelite (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please forget the silly damn"one drop rule". It doesn't really exist if you don't count "hardcore extremists" like we also don't back such things up by "neo-Nazis" and similar. And no, I'm not African American. Do I have to be one to be allowed to talk about their issues? Guess not. But of course that is "only" my opinion.

"not first bi-racial president of African American descent??"

And why not "first African American" and then as it is already stated by his heritage being bi-racial?

Can I ask you an honest question which you of course don't have to answer: Are you an African American and/or US citizen? I'm asking you this so I have the possibility to understand your stance better.

I might go to bed anytime soon but will respond at some point. Thanks,--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm a proud American and I'm part African American proudly. And yes you do have full rights to talk about another groups issues.Mcelite (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that that this is really relevant to the discussion, but if people are born in the U.S. (especially those that their families have been here for generations) shouldn't they just be Americans? I mean, if they are 'African Americans' then I am a 'European American' and no one has ever called me that in my life. Landon1980 (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is something that we cannot and should not determine. That's a completely different, unrelated issue. Not to mention most people find that train of thought offensive. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is laughable that so many have said that African American is neutral. I keep asking but no one can tell me how it is neutral, just that it is. According to NPOV both sides that can be verified through reliable sources are to be representes evenly. Having African American alone shows an extreme bias. No doubt it should be there but so should bi-racial, maybe even to a lesser extent, but it should be there. This article has a big problem with consensus being formed by big time Obama fans, most make it no secret. They all only care about what he calls himself, while ignoring the fact sources say both. Obama also identifies as both, like that matters. An RFC is our only hope of getting our core policies enforced on this article. Landon1980 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that calling someone an "African American" is not neutral? So... When are you going to make the same argument on the hundreds of other Wikipedia pages in which American individuals of partial or complete African descent are entirely uncontroversially referred to as "African American?" If it's not a neutral term, would you describe it as a positive term or a negative term? And if it is a positive term, what would you propose its opposite is? This is silly. He is an African American. I don't see the point in dragging this out any further. --GoodDamon 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for misrepresenting my view, you did make a nice straw man though. Sources can be found in large numbers for the term b-racial alone, several more fore mult--racial, thousands for Obama white mother, etc. Please read over WP:NPOV. Everyone in the world knows (if not eveyone an extremely large number) that Obama is bi-racial. We know this because news media have reported this thousands if not millions of times. If they don't come out and say bi-racial (and many many do) they describe him as bi-racial. We are an encyclopedia, a world encyclopedia, and the article must be neutral. It isn't our job to determine what Obama calls himself, but to report verifiable facts. Landon1980 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Look... For every news article that describes Obama as "multi-racial" or a variant thereof, there are a hundred that refer to him as "African American." He usually refers to himself that way. A part of WP:NPOV is WP:WEIGHT: How much weight we should give individual pieces of information. "African American" is weighted properly, appearing in the lead. Details about Obama's diverse ethnic background are also weighted properly, appearing in the body of the main article about him. Both are fully verifiable facts, so both appear in the article. And both are properly weighed. I don't see any need to change that for NPOV as you're arguing. --GoodDamon 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon it's people like you that make it hard for anyone with African American heritage and another to comfortably say they are bi or multiracial and proudly fit in with the ethnic groups that comprise their heritage. Is Barak Obama African American yes, but he is not soley African Ameican. That's what is wrong with just stating African American in the lead. It's not the whole truth and it's irrespondsible to just follow the leader on an important issue. I'm thrilled he will be the next president of the United States but let's get this clear he will be the first b-racial and first person of African American descent to be president. Not African American. There are not that many full blooded African Americans as there as that are multigenerationally mixed. So the lead should clearly state bi-racial. In addition, it causes less confusion for readers that have no clue who Barak Obama is in this world.Mcelite (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, no one is saying he isn't African American, but he is bi-racial too. He is half African American, half do you not understand that? This is an entirely different situation than you described. One of our core policies is to represent the facts evenly and without bias to either side. The difference here is thousands of sources are out their verifing his mixed heritage. This attitude are why people with mixed race are forced into picking a side. Landon1980 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - African American doesn't assume anything about a percentage. African American is a term used for Americans of African descent. Wikipedia is not responsible with creating a technical definition of a race. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the proposal is to put the following in the lead: News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. Everyme 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A clear and easy to understand point. Still, I doubt it will bring this (in my opinion useless) discussion to a halt as I'm already proofed right.Sigh.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone offered Google's opinion: Barack Obama African American 5 million+ Barack Obama bi-racial 200,000+. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 01:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right it isn't, but Wikipedia's job is to represent both sides in a neutral manner. Everyone builds a straw man every time I ask this question. If reliable sources call him bi-racial, African American, mixed heritage, etc. how is simply calling him African American in the lead neutral? There are hundreds of thousands of sources that go into detail of his mixed heritage. The more I see "he self-identifies as" the more obvious is an RFC is appropriate. I may be wrong, but is there a policy that suggest we follow the wishes of the living person. I've read over BLP multiple times and I can't find it in there. The funny part though is he keeps it no secret he is bi-racial, he's wrote books about it even. He has talked about it on many many occasions. Landon1980 (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So maybe we should put it this way (NPOV pure as a virgin): "a human who won the highest position in a country called USA was also the first [censored] to achieve this in history...". Of course I'm being sarcastic, no questions ask.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm really isn't helpful to the discussion and isn't needed. Landon1980 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, it was obviously a joke. A light tone is needed when these things drag on and on. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How about something similar to the compromise reached for Lewis Hamilton - 'Coming from a mixed race background, with a white mother and black father, Obama is frequently identified as the first African-American president of the United States'? Over-emphasising his blackness is an insult to his mother and his late grandmother who raised him after his dad deserted him --MartinUK (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and would be fine with your suggestion. Landon1980 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. Now you want him to declare himself the first African American President? Can you cite this (reliable)?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - per Grsz11's rationale above. It doesn't get much clearer than this; Barack Obama is widely described as the first African-American president. This is not a polemic. This is not a slight on bi-racial peoples. It is simply reflecting what the vast preponderance of reliable sources categorize and describe Obama as. If people have an issue with media over-simplification or compartmentalizing in their reporting, the Wikipedia project is not a vehicle to address such matters. Tarc (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the proposal is to put the following in the lead: News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. Everyme 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't support weasel-worded "Some people say" options, either. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Support IT First of all not all media is reported at the politically correct level. You are much more likely to have a comentator that's an old man call Obama black or African American than a young man. It's a generational thing. Second some editors are biased and if they had it their way they would have completely scraped Obama's family history (basically not ever mentioning that his mother is Caucasian). I know this for a fact. My older cousin is an editor for Fox News and they have a list of editors which they double check their work because they will not mention that a person is bi or multiracial if they have any African American blood. That includes excluding any family members that are a different race. An article on Beyonce Knowles is the best I can think of right now but one of the editors wanted to change it mentioning that her mother is Creole and just put that her mother was black hence Creoles are a mixture of African American, Native American, and French. That's why I'm against just going by what the media wants to say. I'm ok with saying he's the first bi-racial president of African American descent I'm totally against it only mentioning African American that's only one side of the story. Clear as day.Mcelite (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Try not to make wikipedia look stupid and weaselly - or "we know better than the public" elitist. Every source that matters calls him African American. The "neutrality" argument is bogus. It gives undue weight to a small minority. The article's body already makes it clear that he's multi-racial. Calling him "white", as Landon sarcastically proposes, misses the point entirely - color trumps lack of color. And this is the flip side of the "one drop" rule. Instead of the old "passing as white" kind of thing (which Obama couldn't in any case), his color is considered a positive - reversing racism. 30 percent of whites who voted for Obama said that race was a factor in their decision to vote for him. And try telling Jesse Jackson and the countless other people of color that he's not African American. After all that we whites have put black people through in this country, this attempt at denial of "African American" is just another form of anti-black racism. That's all emotional stuff. But what really matters in wikipedia is the predominant sources, and they say "African American", and that's what he is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ASF is the answer you're looking for. It renders all of your "points" irrelevant. And the current proposal, which you apparently missed, is to reword the sentence to "News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States." Nobody's arguing to substitute African American anymore. You're arguing against a strawman -- with strawman arguments. Everyme 14:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not just the news media who "refer to" him as such, the proposal is flawed. Try:

(1) "Obama is widely recognized as the first African American to be elected President of the United States." Or

(2) "The ethnically diverse Obama is widely recognized as the first African American to be elected President of the United States."

--Evb-wiki (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Too wordy, defying predominant sources, wikipedia imposing its pedantry on the reader. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have no idea about assessing sources, it seems. Everyme 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Or how about an even simpler sentence that dose not contain any weasel words: "Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States." It is simple, it recognizes what everyone is saying, it also recognizes what Obama self-identifies as. Brothejr (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Reread WP:WEASEL and drop that silly strawman. Everyme 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[ec] Which is - like - maintaining the status quo, dude. Okay:

(3) "Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States."

--Evb-wiki (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Widely recognised" won't do the trick. To actually adhere to NPOV, some sort of acknowledgement is necessary of the simple and (hopefully at this point) uncontested fact that the enormous weight assigned to his heritage (sufficient weight to form the second sentence of the lead!) stems solely from the fact that he is being widely referred to as [...]. Everyme 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Ok. Yesterday you said my similar proposal, with that phrase in it, was fine by you. With these shifting sand, I do not anticipate consensus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

... I've thought about it more in-depth and refined my reasoning. Is that not allowed? The point is that "widely recognized" goes in the right direction, but will at all probability be shot down with some silly strawman arguments. It misses the mark just by a few inches, but it does. If we were talking just about the options of leaving it like it is or inserting "widely recognized", I'd be all for it. But "widely referred to as" is even better, and I came up with that precise wording for a good reason. Everyme 15:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[ec] That's fine. But "widely refered to" is so non-committal. It make me think, "Okay, what is he really? They may refer to him as such, but what's the truth?" I don't think it hits the mark at all. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's why I proposed "News media widely refer to Obama, who is of mixed heritage, as the first African American to be elected President of the United States" above. But you didn't appear to like it. Could we settle on "Obama, who is of mixed heritage, is widely referred to as the first African American to be elected President of the United States" ? Everyme 15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "recognized." Disingenuous was the term I was looking for; The phrase seems disingenous. But at least we're not laying it all on the dreaded news media. I'm not going to fight against it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(Takes Everyme's strawman and lights it on fire) While I prefer the status quo statement because it reflects Obama's self identity I want to throw this statement out as a compromise: (4) "Obama is the first person of African descent to be elected President of the United States." It reflects the heritage he identifies as and also contains a connotation that he also descends from other heritages/races. Brothejr (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a strawman proposal! It's clear by now that we are going to stick with "African American", and rightly so. The only relevant question that remains is whether or not we formulate the sentence correctly. Please focus on the discussion at hand, and don't try to distract from the relevant points. Everyme 15:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If everyone on this talk page keeps demanding the lead sentence not be neutral then we will just have to seek wider input from the community. The truth is it is obvious that a lot of you are biased about this. There are more than enough reliable sources to have something about his mixed heritage in the lead sentence. I'd bet that nearly everyone in the world knows that he is of mixed heritage. The very first sentence ignoring this looks like an extreme bias on our part. Most of you will not be happy with anything unless the lead sentence completely ignores the fact that he is of mixed heritage. Core policies should trump consensus of 18 talk page regulars. WP:NPOV and ASF are both being completely ignored. All of you keep talking about what Obama self-identifies as, and I keep asking where the policy is that suggests we take that into consideration. The sad part is he identifies as both, and is very close to his mother's side of the family. An extremely large number of without a doubt reliable sources are out there to verify his mixed heritage. If the lead is to be even a little tiny bit neutral it must mention something about his mixed heritage. Is an RFC the only way to get unbiased people that will fairly consider both sides to comment or is there another process. With policies being ignored I'm thinking about formal mediation, or what is the criteria for the arbitration committe? This issue pertains to how our core policies are being interpreted/ignored and something must be done. A very very large amount of readers and editors have expressed concerns about this. This is one of the busiest, if not 'the' busiest article there is and the very first sentence being biased is not a good thing. Landon1980 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Again with the "you're all stupid if you don't share my opinion" point of argument? Haven't you learned by now that this simply isn't going to work here? Despite the voluminous arguments of a small few here, it isn't going to change the reality that AA is more widely recognized and used than this "bi-racial" tag. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting words in my mouth Tarc. If not biracial, the fact he is of mixed heritage needs to be incorporated into the lead in some way. Policy should trump consensus anyways. Far more than 18 people have said this, far far more. I urge you to go back just one month and count the number of threads started regarding this. I would argue that there are just as many sources out there speaking of his mixed heritage than there are for African American. They may not all say bi-racial, but they get the point across one way or the other. There is really no need for us to go back and forth with this. You have made it clear that the only thing you'd be happy with is ignoring the fact he is of mixed heritage altogether, if that isn't biased then what is. We all have our own POV's and biases, how we handle them is what matters. Asking for it to only tell one side of the story is bias, and at the same time unacceptable. Landon1980 (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, ignoring valid arguments just doesn't fly. We will get you to listen to and either repond to or concede the valid points. It's just a matter of time. And you guys, that much needs to be said in all fairness, are waisting a lot of our time with what amounts to one big WP:IDHT clusterf*ck. What with all the responding to made-up strawmen and the quick-archiving away "difficult" postings. It's ridiculous, and Landon is right that we may have to seek wider community input unless a bunch of admins are willing to step in and put and end to this mess. Everyme 16:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because you feel they are valid points does not mean others feel the same, or that they are wrong for not feeling the same as you. If any admins are to step in, I certainly hope that these clear indications of intentional disruptive editing ("It's just a matter of time") will be looked into. Y'know, sometimes you just don't get your way. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't realise that they are valid doesn't render them invalid. The problem is not with the arguments provided to you, as evidenced by your overall reaction, or rather: non-reaction. Everyme 16:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just a 3 or 4 people that have asked the lead to be neutral, Tarc. Strawmen are the only way you will respond to our valid points. Like I said, a core policy certainly should trump the consensus of 18 page watchers. If we were to compare the numbers on each side in the last month it would be far greater than 18. One of our core policies cannot be ignored on the most active artricle we have, it is really that simple. I've spent several hours the last couple days seeing just who says what and how often. When you compare bi-racial with African American there are far more for African American. However, when you compare AA with sources that go into detail describing his mixed heritage it comes out very close to the same. Looks like a lead sentence that adheres to all the policies in question could be "With an African father and white American mother he is widely described as the first African American President" That is just a very rough idea, just something along those lines, wording could be different. Such as being more specific about his mother and father's ethnicity. Landon1980 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My God! How is using African American POV?! You're twisting everything to your messed up opinion. We use reliable source and, as I added to the article last night, they say African American. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 17:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying African American isn't POV, only saying African American is POV. That whole reliable source thing must not be true, if you were to add up the ones that call him bi-racial, multi-racial, and go into detail saying he has an African father and white American mother you'd have thousands of them. I encourage you to prove that more can be found calling him only African American than can be found for his mixed heritage. Talk about not understanding, what do you not understand about it? Have you ever read WP:NPOV? When sources can be found for both sides picking one is a POV, it is that simple, this isn't complicated. Landon1980 (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm saying they call him African American primarily and predominantly. They very less frequently call him biracial. They may say white mother, black father, but that doesn't suddenly mean he's any less African. Sources cannot be found of the same volume on either side. I invite you to find reliable sources that refer to him as the first biracial president, but I guarantee they will be limited in number compared to African American. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested calling him the first bi-racial president. All I want is for the lead to in some way incorporate the fact he is of mixed heritage. Just as many sources are out there that say he has an African father and a white mother, and the lead could say just that. His mixed heritage is not given due weight. Landon1980 (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe make the font size of "bi-racial" proportional to the proportion he's identified that way by the sources. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to incorporate any such thing in the lead, as it simply isn't notable enough, and trying to put it on the same level as African-American begins to run afoul of undue weight concerns. I don't know how many times we have to cover this same ground. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary policy break

Let's look again at those core policies. WP:V says that the material we add must have been published in reliable sources. WP:OR says essentially the same thing: we must not include material that hasn't been published. WP:NPOV says several things: first, we should document all significant viewpoints fairly and without bias; second, we should not give undue weight to minority viewpoints; third, we should not state opinions as facts.

I think that all of these policies are compatible with the lead saying that he has been described as the first African American to be elected president of the US and with the body of the article talking about his mixed heritage. Coverage is fair and neutral, it's fully verifiable (meaning that it can all be cited to reliable sources) and it gives due weight to the different viewpoints (i.e. African American is more prominently documented because that is the predominant viewpoint).

Consensus seems to support this approach, although there is still some question about how best to word the sentence in the lead (should it be "widely referred to as..." or "media describe him as..." or something else?) Productive discussion, I think, is best focussed towards this latter question.

Okay, enough about productive discussions. Please resume your interminable wrangling now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Obama, who is of mixed heritage, is widely referred to as the first African American to be elected President of the United States. — Out of the lot of more or less workable compromise, this is the best I can currently think of. It accounts for the fact that Obama is indeed African American, according not only to self-identification but also to the commonplace definition (whence the link to Multiracial American#African Americans). It also lends some explanation to why we (more or less rightly) assign so much weight to this statement as to make it the second sentence of the lead, namely that apart from the fact that Obama is African American (which by itself is a tidbit of minor relevance in the greater shape of things), he is also and importantly widely being referred to as [...]. Everyme 16:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Hi Sheffield, with respect, I don't think consensus yet supports adding "widely referred to.." "media describe him.." into the lead. He's African American, self identifies as such, the overwhelmingly vast majority of RS's identify him as such (not just media, but academia, U.S. Gov't, etc.) We're talking about labels here and the fact of the matter is that the label applied to him 99%+ of the time is African American, including by the RS's that discuss his white mother and black father. There is no controversy or 'increased accuracy' that we need to account for in the lead. Plainly saying that he is the first AA President-elect in the lead, without any weasel words that may suggest otherwise is the most policy (NPOV, RS, BLP) compliant. The details of his parents are succinctly documented in the first paragraph the follows the lead. --guyzero | talk 16:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You keep mentioning self-identification, he self-identifies as both. Do you mind pointing to which policy and where it says we should take into consideration what he self-identifies as? Everyone keeps comparing bi-racial with AA, try comparing AA with sources that either say bi-racial, multi-racial, and the ones that go into detail describing it saying he has a black African father and white American mother, it comes out to about the same. Only putting African American in the lead is not neutral in any form or fashion. As far as ASF, does it really matter how many editors support that when one of our core policies in fact does say we do that? Landon1980 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The ASF argument hinges on the notion that basically everyone (with very few exceptions) is of the opinion that he is African American. Trying to insert these types of weasel words into the lead is like saying that "Scientists widely report that the earth is round." --guyzero | talk 17:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well the Earth isn't half flat and half round, with sources choosing to call it flat when it is only half flat. If African American is fact than so is white, and so is bi-racial. No one is saying he is not African American, both bi-racial, white and AA are true. Do you not understand that he is half African American and half white? Landon1980 (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable and verifiable sources that call Obama (not his mom, him) white? I know that we have them for AA and bi-racial.LedRush (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - See there you are again, suggesting that Obama can be regarded as "white". Are there any sources, anywhere that make this claim? All this "half this half that" stuff in unscientific nonsense, frankly. The undeniable, reliably-sourced fact is that he is an African American by blood and choice. It is this fact that is historically significant, and it is this fact that should feature prominently in the introduction. The multi-racial stuff (which is interesting, but less notable in this context) is perfectly adequately covered in the main body of the article. Your continuous disagreement in the face of overwhelming consensus against you is become extremely tendentious, and too much effort is being wasted on this minor matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that if being half African American can make you completely African American the same argument can be made for white. If half black makes you just black, then half white can make you just white. The truth is he is half white and half black? That is a simple point that you seem to not understand. Where is the scientific data that suggests otherwise? Can you point me to a study that suggests that African blood will cancel out white blood and make you completely black? The "multi-racial stuff" as you call it is not less notable, and if you would take the time to look you would know that. Try comparing sources that say AA to the ones that either say bi-racial, multi-racial, or go into detail about him having a white mother and black father. I am very offended by you acting like he can be anything but white when he has just as much white blood as anything else, and I would appreciate if you would stop saying that to me. Landon1980 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon, I hear you and understand your point. However, we need reliable, verifiable sources to include anything on Wikipedia. Do you know of any that call Obama (and not his mom) white? Otherwise, inclusion of this opinion will violate policy on synthesis and original research.LedRush (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

LedRush, I would only need a reliable source saying he was white if I had plans of putting that in the article. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not recall mentioning the article should say that he is white. Landon1980 (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be misunderstanding your argument. Are you just arguing for inclusion of the fact that he is biracial? (if that's the case, I agree).LedRush (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(after ec again, sigh) - The problem here is that you are focusing on his color (which sort of makes a mockery of your previous, inappropriate comment). As I have repeatedly stated before, there are black presidents everywhere, but there has never been an African American POTUS. This is the historically-significant aspect that the majority of reliable sources talk about. They refer to US civil rights history, and individuals like Parks and King, when talking about Obama's achievement. The multi-racial aspect is covered in the article body with appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem, the lead could still say he is the first African American president. In fact I don't recall anyone ever suggesting removing that from the lead. Just as many sources can be found that go into detail of his mixed heritage, I would encourage you to prove otherwise. Incorporating his mixed heritage in the lead would end this dispute. As of now it is brought up dozens of times on a weekly basis. His mixed heritage is not given due weight, WP NPOV clearly states the lead should be neutral. By the way, if you have a problem with my comments, or with my editing style, take it up at the appropriate venue. Just kindly inform me of when and where you do. Landon1980 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) Thanks for your feedback, everyone. There seems to be disagreement (to put it mildly) as to whether or not Obama is African American. On the other hand, there is no disagreement about the fact that Obama is described as African American. When I read that part of NPOV that talks about facts versus opinions (WP:NPOV#A simple formulation) this situation seems to be quite straightforward - and consistent with the first statement being an opinion, and the second a fact. With that in mind, perhaps it would be most productive to discuss whether the first statement can be established to be a fact, and also to discuss how best to represent the undisputed facts with regard to policies (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:V) and to a lesser extent with regard to guidelines (e.g. WP:WEASEL). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with your characterization of the situation. I believe only two editors (perhaps only one) say that he is not AA, and I have seen no reliable, verifiable resources to back up this opinion. If you could provide examples of either, I'd be appreciative.LedRush (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So how would you characterise the situation? What do you see as the areas of contention? Which policies should be applied, or are not being applied correctly? Where do you think future discussion should focus, to be most productive? Can you see any of this leading to an improvement to the article? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So how would you characterise the situation? What situation? Only one or two editors have said that he's not AA, so if that's what you're talking about, it seems consensus has been reached.

What do you see as the areas of contention? (again guessing as to your question) I would say that some people want to include references to Obama being biracial (or something similar) in either the lead or the main.

Which policies should be applied, or are not being applied correctly? Where? In regard to what?

Where do you think future discussion should focus, to be most productive? I would suggest adding some more specific mention of his biracial background in the body and see how that sits. If people like the solution, we could talk about similar language in the lead. If not, leave the lead and the body (with the biracial content). Of course, that's off the top of my head.

Can you see any of this leading to an improvement to the article? I give it a 40% chance.LedRush (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no dispute at all with referring to Obama as "African American", as currently used in the introduction. The dispute appears to be about whether or not we additionally refer to Obama's multi-racial status in the lead. It is my position that doing so would be undue weight (since it is adequately covered in the body of the article). My position is based on:

(a) The apparent fact that reliable sources refer to Obama's African American status a lot more than they do his multi-racial status - perhaps an order of magnitude.

(b) Being the first African American president is a lot more historically-significant than being a black or multi-racial president, due to America's slave and civil rights history. This is also reflected by reliable sources.

The introduction of the article should be a summary of the significant details of Obama's life, and going into the mixed-race heritage (which is hardly unique) seems to overstate its importance. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with (you) scjessey on some specifics (number of citations, undue weight) but would you oppose adding additional "biracial" info in the body?LedRush (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with your position is you ignore the fact that just as many sources go into detail of his mixed heritage as come out and say African American. That sort of puts the undue weight problem to rest. There are way too many sources for both sides, there is no way you could prove that more sources say African American than refer to his mixed heritage in some way. I'm getting the feeling that if most of you could have your way the entire article would completely ignore his mixed-racial background. Only having African American in the lead is a serious POV on our part. There is absolutely no reason the introduction could not mention his mixed heritage in some way. Undue weight is nothing more than an attempt to keep it out. An incredibly large number of sources explain his mixed heritage, so why could the lead not mention it. Are all of you willing to discuss this everytime a new thread is started? There have been an overwhelming amout of concerns expressed about this, far more than 18. Why not put the dispute to bed once and for all? I still think wider community input is needed, that is the only way to solve this. Landon1980 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How can we put it to bed? Every time the issue is discussed, the majority of editors say he should be described as African American. Therefore it seems likely that, if we were to change the description to anything else, the number of concerns expressed would be higher. Unless, of course, there's some magic compromise solution that no one has yet suggested but everyone could live with... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Political correctness aside for a moment, do you guys have any issues with: "Obama is the first black person to be elected President of the United States" ? --guyzero | talk 20:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha. I have no problem with that myself, and I know we could find a ton of sources from around the world, but I understand that it could be problematic for many from the US. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that helps. Is there opposition to calling him biracial in the body? I feel that this selection is never seriously talked about because people always revert to talking about the lead.LedRush (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, agreed. My point is that "African American" and "(American) black person, descended from Africa" are held as synonyms, regardless of what percentage of black ancestry. Its as indisputable as the world is round that he is a black person. I've never heard the term "half African American", but it's used frequently in the arguements above. The straw poll above shows strong (almost unanimous) consensus for the current language in the lead. Any chance we can move on from discussing the lead? --guyzero | talk 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that I could point to as opposition to calling him biracial (or of mixed race) in the body of the article. I think that all the arguments so far have been about the lead. Having said that, it's far from clear that all the participants think so... so perhaps some people have been arguing for or against that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So you have never seen someone that is half African American? So you are saying people that both parents are African American are not more African American that a person with one African American parent? What about if a person has one Asian parent and one African American parent? Are they still completely African American or they Asian as well? I think white blood is the only blood that is weak enough to be cancelled out completely, right? Landon1980 (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the number of complaints are more as is, as of now you have 18 talkpage regulars, pretty much the same people that object everytime someone mentions this. I really wish one of you would prove that him being African American is more notable than his mixed heritage. Most of you seem to be advocates for Obama, in him being only thought of as African American. I'm not the only person in this discussion that has said something about his mixed heritage should go into the lead. There has to be something that can be done about the same editors pooling together against different people several times a month forming their own consensus. One of our core policies is being ignored, yes completely ignored. I'd be willing to bet that nearly all of you are Obama supporters, hence your interest in the article and what he self-identifies as. I have bias too, it is both sides being represented evenly. Why don't we go over to the Mccain talk page and ask this question, guarantee you we get different results. We need wider community input, as of now it is the same handful of people objecting every time. The thing is all of you object all at once, the rest of us slowly do it every week, and dozens upon dozens of time a month. The threads are quickly archived away and you compare yourselves against new people each time. Why don't we take the time to see just who has said what about it this month alone, then see where consensus is. Landon1980 (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"I really wish one of you would prove that him being African American is more notable than his mixed heritage." We have. It's called the number of reliable sources that use African American, compared to the number of reliable sources that use biracial. There's a massive difference in the two numbers. And don't presume to know the motivations behind anybody's edits. Your refusal to let this go despite an overwhelming consensus against it makes you lose credibility with every additional comment you make on it that says the same, non-constructive thing. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 01:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how do you know how many there are for African American? How do you know how many there are that mention his mixed heritage? If you have took the time to figure this out please share this with others. Landon1980 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A simple Google search does the trick. Then browse 'til your hearts desire. I pointed this out above, you shockingly ignored. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Are Google hits something we actually consider reliable? How do you know out of such a large number how many of them are reliable sources? You only entered bi-racial, try also entering Barack Obama mixed, Barack Obama white mother, Barack Obama African Father, Barack Obama white grandmother, Barack Obama black father, Barack Obama mixed heritage, ethinicity, etc. Landon1980 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My god give it a rest man. You can look through the search and find as many as you want. You've beaten this dead horse far past the point of sanity and driven away anybody who could deal with you. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So in other words you have no idea if more reliable sources can be found for African American than ones that mention his mixed heritage do you? If my behavior is as disruptive as you say why have you not reccomended a block? If what you say is true you really should take this up somewhere. Landon1980 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

is there any objection to "Obama is first African and European American to be elected the President of the United States." or "Obama is to be elected the first President of the United States with African and European Heritage." I mean you could just cut out African and put Kenyan. I would call a person of German heritage a German American, though if he is of mixed or unknown European heritage, one would call him European American. The same would apply to me If I don't know my heritage down to the country, I am African American. If I know my father is from Kenya, then I would be Kenyan American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.72.33 (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't make up our own descriptions here. This is an encyclopedia, not a source for primary news. "European American" is an obscurity that never really passed into everyday usage. No offense, but it is an even worse suggestion than what has been proposed previously. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

|}

Lets get the Infobox name right

Earlier discussions are at Infobox format and Talk:Barack_Obama#Full_name_in_infobox.

Identity has value. Its important not only to me, but almost everyone that has put together this Wikipedia. Having and keeping a birth name is sometimes done only for legal purposes, such as for wills and estates, and used in swearing in (again a legal formality), but a common name is something else, its something we live and breath with every day. Obama may not care one iota which name we use in the template above his image, and it doesn't bother me much. But, not following our style guideline does bother me. Think about it... are we following reliable sources? How often do reliable sources use Barack Hussein Obama II in their titles? We worry about giving biracial too much weight, but now disregard weight completely with his names (juxtaposed with his image)? And what about future presidents? Do we again go against the reliable sources and not use their notable identities under this recent push for a troublesome non-compliant full name convention? How many president articles have been through the rigor of a Featured Article process? Lets get this right and comply with guidelines at Manual_of_Style#Identity that many hardworking fellow editors put together with these exact same considerations in mind. Modocc (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

note: I had not intended on a straw poll, and the first responses to this are a jumbled mess, with agreed meaning either for full names or against. Any help cleaning it up or putting together a proper poll would be appreciated. Thanks. Modocc (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Hussein Obama II is his name, and that should be in the infobox. Everyme 11:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. Facts are facts. To leave the full name out of the infobox would demonstrate a bias. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 13:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Following Manual_of_Style#Identity with the precedence set by Template:Infobox_Person would not be bias. All biographies should conform. If there is any bias here, its the favoring of full names for only US Presidents. Modocc (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. It needs to be in line with MOS.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed . Almost all similar articles use the full name and should be no different here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean only US Presidents? What other leaders should not conform with guideline precedence and set new precedence? Modocc (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Madocc, I'll say this once: Cut out the baiting, now. Everyme 15:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I was hoping for some clarity on your position so perhaps we can change guidelines to reflect whatever consensus might be reached.[striking what came across wrong, as I didn't mean to fray any nerves here] Modocc (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trolls don't like it when you bait them. That's supposed to be their shtick. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Consistency Barack Obama There seems to be a dispute over the use of full names in the infoboxes. I remain unconvinced that using the full name follows the manual of style. However, the last time I checked, the President's infoboxes are all that way. So by that approach, Obama's should be also. His political enemies tried to make a thing out of his middle name. That tactic didn't work (nor did trying to rhyme "Obama" with "Osama"), and there's nothing wrong with his middle name. So if the other Presidents' middle names stay, so should this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC) As a more observant reader pointed out, the template has a spot for Birth Name, i.e. full name. Restating that at the top of a bio infobox is a redundancy, except where commonly used (William Jennings Bryan, for example). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has even come close to showing that there is adequate precedence for them; what has been shown here on talk are only US presidents and those articles have been inconsistent over time and have not been Featured and fall under Otherstuffexists. Also, why stop with US presidents, supreme court justices are important too and governors such as Sara Palen... and I could go on, but not here. The reason this goes down a slippery slope is that the presidential full names are being given undue weight. Modocc (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article title is the common name, and the lead carries the full name. Toss a coin as to which one belongs in the infobox. Here's a radical idea: Neither one. The subject is already stated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The person infobox set precedence here, unless reliable sources for presidents differ radically from other biographical subjects. Modocc (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• consistency I prefer the "most commonly used name" for the info box, but vote for consistency (whatever that is) above all.LedRush (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• commonly used name, of course. :-) Its really not a matter if there is a preference either, for I like his full name,since Barack Hussein Obama II is going to be our best president ever! That said, presenting encyclopedic information that reflects published reliable sources does matter. Full names are not used in titles of most secondary sources. We should check the Britannica, Old World and other encyclopedias too. We should have common ground here, and we can change any or all of the presidential names to reflect it. Modocc (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

*Barack Hussein Obama II. Every other Wikipedia biography about a president uses the president's full name. Why are we making an exception? This invites accusations of favoritism from one side, and racism from another. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 300wackerdrive was confirmed as a socket puppet of banned user BryanFromPalatine. Modocc (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The MoS guidelines demand consistencytoo, but over a broader range of people. Thus, this discussion is really about what all presidential info names should be. Modocc (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what should it be? If the norm for names is the most common name, i.e. the name of the article, then the U.S. Presidents should be changed to the names of the articles, and it wouldn't take but a few minutes to do that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Aye! All should be changed to their article name, unless reliable sources differ. Modocc (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Again (and I repeat myself in part), there was a discussion about this going on [it was around June if I remember right] and the result/consensus was to keep the common name in the info box as the full name is already (and consistently) given in the lead. About a week ago, someone came up with the Idea to include the birth name in the info box since there is a spot exactly for this (unless it was erased as it was in some I checked). IMO I was hoping it stays and it did for a while till after the election when surprisingly this issue was brought up again. I'm really wondering why now, since it wasn't an issue for month and I'm trying to figure out the actual intention of going thru this again. Take a look at the long-term history of McCain and Hillary Clinton and you'll find out that the common name was used before this silly discussion emerged.

Anyway, this "discussion" doesn't belong here but at a "general" place since it isn't or shouldn't be about Obama. Consensus needs to be reached but not here because whatever comes out (or not) can be dismissed for other BLP's as "other crap exists".

One last thing: Another way to dismiss such "consensus" here can be "wp:ignore all rules".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Few people visit style pages (a few per day). So what do we do, start a RfC there? I am also concerned about only editors that watchlist the affected articles will show up in droves, and their views may not reflect the wider community. Modocc (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there (or maybe on the page which I don't remember; Some BLP page about what to include in the BLP-template). And a "mass-canvassing" would be approbate and within WP-policies to attract more editors.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Happyme22 suggested in this discussion that we use the office holder template. I'm OK with any of these places, but have never done mass-canvassing and I haven't edited much, just visiting mostly, off and on for about a year, with a slow modem connection to boot and I still feel newbie-ish much of the time. Modocc (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I am tempted to start the discussion anew, but I just can't afford the time (and it would take a long time) to canvass. My dialup is just too slow, it takes forever to get anything done here as it is (its gotten better cause my connection used to fail often). Hence, someone else will have to do the honors. Modocc (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Preferably someone will volunteer that has the skills, experience and speed to do it well, so we have something done that will help prevent future discussions like this one. Modocc (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes! That's the page it should be discussed and decided. And don't worry about "mass canvassing". That is the least of our problem ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is "just" a guideline, and non-binding, if we can establish some consensus there my hope is that most editors will obey it (no matter of the outcome) and "crush" any further disrupting discussion about it in the future.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Little correction: The correct page is Template:Infobox Person where these info boxes come from.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know about a crush, cause one really broke my spirit. )::-) But, I must take a wikibreak for awhile now, but I will be back later, either late tonight or midday tomorrow. I'll either start a discussion then or join in one if its already started. I enjoyed our discussion. :-) Bye! Modocc (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hold your breath: Under Parameter, name, it states the following: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name).".

So there is the page I was looking for all the time and the reason why the names in the info boxes of the participants of this years election where kept with their common name, rather than the now proposed "full birth name" (which still should be included in the box under "birth name"). After finding this I don't see a need for further discussion unless of course some just wants to bend this existing guideline [oh, hold it, it doesn't seem to be a just a guideline if I didn't miss something] or seemly more this policy for whatever reason.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: "don't know about a crush, cause one really broke my spirit." Shit happens all the time but afterwards it only can get better ;) Best wishes, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You're citing a template documentation as if it were policy. I'll revert your edit now, and warn you to defy established consensus like that again, particularly with an inept wikilawyering trick like that. Everyme 12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I don't know who you reverted but it certainly wasn't me. Lack of attention?

And as for your insult including your laughable warning [you're already in the "hall of fame" for such behavior]: Keep it for yourself, best in a dark spot and hard to reach. End of discussion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Lolly, what's the point of having the full name in the infobox twice, when he's not commonly known by his full name? Or are you still trying to make a "thing" of his middle name? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The real question is: Why are you still trying to make a "big thing" out of his middle name? Do you have a personal problem with the Arab middle name? Everyme 14:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the name Hussein. The general question is: Why does Franklin Delano Roosevelt need to have his full name in two different places in the infobox? It's redundant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The full name should be at the top. You keep arguing against it, and I still don't recognise any reason why anyone would do so other than a pre-existing sentiment against the Arabic middle name. Everyme 15:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There's already an infobox slot for full name. Why do you need it twice in the infobox? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know or care what you are talking about. The full name should be at the very top of the infobox in big bold letters, period. Everyme 17:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox has "Barack Hussein Obama II" at the top and then under "Birth name" it has "Barack Hussein Obama II". That's called redundancy. And since you seem to like redundancy, how about everyplace in the article where it just says "Obama" or "Barack Obama", change it "Barack Hussein Obama II". Just for those who didn't catch it the other 333 times. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at other presidents they all have their full name at the top of the infobox. So if it's consistency you want, you should either have Obama's full name here or delete the full name from all the other presidents. Obvious, I would have thought. MFlet1 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They didn't all used to, until sometime in the last week, when they were changed hurriedly in order to try to force this issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Obama (most commonly used name) in infobox. Barack Hussein Obama II (full proper name) as first words of lead. Per MOS and it just reads better. LotLE×talk 18:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense and doesn't violate any wp guideline or policy, yet POV prevents such simple and clear consensus to being applied and the "fight" will go on.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Full name - why hide his identity? w_tanoto (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not hidden and easy to find. Maybe you want to take another look and strike out or rephrase your comment?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is about his name in the infobox, not the main article. Why hide the middle in infobox while other US presidents have their full name displayed? and why should I rephrase my comment? This is the discussion about infobox, which as you can see, hide his middle name (i noted sometimes somebody added his full name, but to be reverted again), unlike the other presidents. He is president elect, and deserve the same treatment of other presidents. Enough said, I voted for his full name. no more comment from me. w_tanoto (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

After your repeated, disrupting comment was already answered below I'm hesitating to what is called "feed the trolls" but I'll do it anyway, at least at this occasion.

You're repeating the word "hiding" (and yourself in general) and no matter where the full name shows up (as long as it is easy to find like right in the beginning of the lead) you should come up with a reasonable explanation why it should be in the info box (as not all BLP's, President or not and let me remind you, that Obama is not yet President of the United States of America but President-elect). Unless you come up with a valuable reason your posts fall under disruption as they're not helpful to solve the issue. Now please stop any further disruption unless you find some new development or whatever could be helpfull--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, first, I am not a troll. My vote is based on that Obama is president-elect (soon-to-be president), so I think it should be uniformed as the other US President. THe main article already have the full name, but we are voting for the infobox info, so it can be made the same to the other presidents. I am not disrupting anything, and am just voicing my opinion. If I am disrupting, please just let me know which part. Different people use different word. Mind that I am not native-english speaker, and MAY use some words incorrectly in incorrect topic in incorrect time sometimes. other than that, I will say no more. w_tanoto (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First let me thank you for your honesty about not "...I am not native-english speaker, and... '". I will keep this in mind in possible future conversations.

As for indirectly calling you a troll, I'll take my remark (I made above) back as I also take back the "disrupting" part (even so it is exactly what you're doing (without being aware of it). Being "Disrupting" is in part making the same (unclear) statement over and over just as an opinion not backed up by any wp-policy or guideline. Furthermore let me explain "voting" on WP since there is NO real voting here. "Voting" is nothing more than a measure where wikipedians stand on an issue and more important, how strong their wp-reasons are. With other words: If you state you like this or that it has almost no standing against "opinions" which cite WP-policies/guidelines. WP just doesn't work solely or in major with plain opinions (which is called personal point of view). I'll gotta go now but I didn't meant to disincourage you to contribute. Just keep in mind the view things I just laid out.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

no probs. just forget the quarrel we had. I don't see your post as discouragement to contribute. You might also like to check the Userpages if you are curious of who a person is (I always do that). Though my level of English is rather high, I have to admit, sometimes, I just simply forget what to say/what the appropriate word to say (actually it does happens to both my first languages as well). I know this voting things are not the real thing. It just determine the content of wikipedia. anyway, I gotta go now. I need to find tags for my recently written article for the lack of reference, etc. Sorry, getting off-topic here. w_tanoto (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Barack Obama (most commonly used name) in infobox, Barack Hussein Obama II (full proper name) as first words of lead. There's no 'precedent' for the full name in the infobox other than recent changes to make it so. From the earlier discussion: 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)

That was consensus for month and I personally stand for this unless someone can come up with some new or better said overlooked stuff that would change everything, not only here but at all BLP's on WP. Till then I'm with you, Ericl, since no one could change my stance with reason. I wouldn't care for either way if somebody could give any WP-policy that demands so, but nobody could bring such, only preferences based in most cases on POW. No, of course I don't wonder about it, but I'm getting very tired of it since this discussion (would have been based on rules and common sense) it would be long over and settled. Wait. Didn't I say that before at some point? Embarrassing, just embarrassing the whole discussion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps size and length matter!

I'm one of those people who don't care which format is used, provided there is consistency. That being said, it occurs to me that the larger font and bold face lend themselves to the common name, rather than the full name (which might cause wrapping in some cases). If the full name is duplicated later in the infobox, it makes more sense to use the common (and usually shorter) name in the prominent position. Anyway, it should be fairly straightforward to get a consensus on something as trivial as this. To continue the innuendo, how hard can it be? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I made that point earlier but this seems not the actual "problem". The problem is, that some "just suddenly" want to change it to their own personal POW. If "those" editors would've been not here I'm sure we would have reached consensus by now (for or against it). My guess is that this senseless "war" will go on for quite some time with plenty of useless (just simple) POW comments/posts which are not in the (good faith) spirit of WP to improve this and other pages (which are directly affected by this). user:Wasted Time R made the right call when he reversed McCain's info box with the remark in his edit summary to wait for "consensus" to build up here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on this, but I believe that common name makes more sense at the top of the infobox and birth/full name can stay in the lead sentence and in the "birth name" field of the infobox. Note that for females, the birth name is not the issue but rather the full name is, and the full name is often a concoction of unmarried and married names, and per Scjessey's observation, can become very unwieldy at the top of the infobox. For an example, see Nancy Pelosi, where the full "Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi" name wraps in my browser. Worse would be if Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis used the full "Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis", which would wrap in anyone's browser. Or take Virginia Kelley, where "Virginia Dell Cassidy Blythe Clinton Dwire Kelley" would be a real mess. If we want to make an exception and use full name at the top for U.S. Presidents, on the grounds of greater formality, I'm okay with that (the presence or absence of "Hussein" doesn't bother me either way). I reverted the full-name-at-top changes to the Hillary and McCain articles because I thought they were being made to prove or disprove a point related to a dispute here, and I don't think those articles should get caught in the middle of an argument that's likely to go on for a few more days ... weeks ... four or eight years.... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WTR. Thank you so much for your input here and you made some good common sense points. Maybe it will effect the discussion or not, but your input was important, at least for me and hopefully I'm not alone with this. Also, I won't change "your pages" as you already saw today because of my respect for you as an editor and because of a penitential edit war (which happened already in part). Let's hope for a consensus that works for most of us wikipedians, (leaving the POV warriors out). Besides that, I don't have strong feelings either regarding this as long there is a solution called "consensus" that could go either way. Thanks again, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly many future woman presidents will be leading our country. And, not to belabor the point, there is no crystal ball telling us how simple or unwieldy their names might be. And the Barack Obama name reads better and avoids redundancy. These are very practical considerations. Many Pointy Fancy Barnstars to the editors pointing these out!:=) In addition, references of any official names must be weighed carefully, since official documents are generally primary source material and any name use should be guided by secondary and tertiary sources. In addition, I don't think there is a one-size fits all here by any means (imagine a famous rap star becoming president or a president becoming a famous rap star!) so exceptions could be made, but let us not forget that these are biographies first and foremost about people's lives in addition to their notable careers. Adhering to a commonly sourced name as prescribed by MoS is as sensible for any large city mayor, as it is for a senator, a celebrated scientist, a president, a Nobel-prize winner or any combination there in. To keep these infoboxes stable, I don't think any additional formal or informal rules are needed, just reasonable agreement on how to best reflect sources. Checking the online Britannica they use Barack Obama in their title like we do, but they don't have a caption with their photo. Interestingly, they use Jr. in their subtitle giving his full name. Also, searching "Barack Hussein Obama II" with Google gets 77,500 hits (some more without those closing brackets). But Google "Barack Obama" we get about 123,000,000 hits! That is an awesome landslide winner for his most common name. Need I say more? Modocc (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add I've been troubled with the notion that presidents' infobox title should conform to only official names, or to just the "most" common names. Sources are sometimes conflicted, such as with Bill Clinton's presidency. I remember when there were strong sentiments with regard to the naming of his library, William Jefferson Clinton. The Britannica's title points out that it is his presidential name. Thus, given the weight of this tertiary source and the usage of the office holder template, it seems more appropriate than his article name. Its an exceptional case for an exceptional president. Each presidency differs of course and preferences do change. If a formal name has significant usage (as with Clinton's library) we should use it, otherwise we use the most common name. Former President Ronald Reagan is perhaps another example, Ronald W. Reagan is slightly more formal and Britannica titles its article with it. But discussion on its usage properly belongs on the Reagan talk page. In the end, I think we have settled the matter for Obama's infobox for now. Modocc (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Just use the same info box naming convention for all Presidentila bios. --Tom 15:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you keep reverting to the full name, but the over-whelming number of editors here have supported the short name and consistency, so please stop. Please reread WTR comment, especially the part about using "that common name makes more sense". Common being the short version "Barack Obama". That is the naming convention per infobox instructions applicable to all boxes including presidential boxes. Modocc (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. We were using the birth name. The full name. The name on his birth certificate. We agreed. Barak Hussein Obama II is what was discussed as being the best choice. Sorry. I realize that many find "Hussein" unpalatable. I hope you don't, Modocc. I'm used to it personally. Whether or not the middle name is strange or familiar to us shouldn't be a factor in this decision, and I don't believe it was. We all decided that the birth name was more conservative, and more accurate. The current choice is to use the full, legal birth name. VictorC (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ones you learned to spell his name right we might consider you being right. :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And besides: "We all decided that the birth name was more conservative...". Isn't he called the most liberal Senator by conservatives? You're confusing me. Shouldn't we call him by the most "liberal" name?????? *LOL*--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And still @ Victorc:

I just saw your edit summary: "Wrong. We were using the birth name. The full name. The name on his birth certificate. We agreed. Barak Hussein Obama II is the best choice."

So no, Sir. You don't declare consensus by ignoring the discussion and/or using it for whatever suits your personal opinion. You should know that since you're not new to WP.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me what you all come up with, but please remember that any consensus reached here, is not binding on any of the other pages on the presidents. Please do not disrupt the info boxes of other pages to prove some point on this page. Thank you, I've said my peace. Good day all.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

I lean towards having both article title and infobox with the person's most commonly used name, and the full birth name (when different) at the start of the first paragraph. That seems to be the more used format, eg Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Herbert Hoover, etc. I feel strongly that all US Presidents should be listed consistent manner. Discussion on consistant listings should be raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Presidents, not here. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no precident to form a consensus here that is binding other articles. Each article has its own talk page and its own consensus.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Forming of WP:CONSENSUS across articles is a complex thing. Normally it's grassroots and emerges from a pattern of decisions on various articles. Occasionally the goal of consistency (as with a number of MOS issues) means imposing a central editorial decision on all the articles. In any event, consensus would not radiate out from this article. It would either be established in a central place like an MOS or a wikiproject on American politics, and then find its way here...or it would develop organically. Obama is a particularly bad place to start on consensus because there are special associations with his middle name. It's best to make the consensus work for people for whom the middle name is not an issue, and then see whether or not we want this article to go along with that. And then, if there is no universal consensus about Presidential infoboxes (or more broadly, American politicians) we're free to make whichever decision we want in this case. Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting results

I just saw that someone actually took a straw poll and there are currently 19 supports for African American and 2 supports for Other. WP:consensus would support what an obvious consensus of editors supports. I don't know why there is any more discussion on the issue. Personally, I favored use of the term bi-racial but I am not involved in this article. (I am a pro-life Catholic who voted for McCain)NancyHeise ^talk 01:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the straw poll asked about the most controversial aspect of the inclusion (in the lead) instead of the one most likely to create an acceptable, compromise solution, like ones suggested above?LedRush (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides, but part of the reason why this keeps being brought up is because it is a high profile page, that has new viewers all of the time. They may not be aware of the previous discussions, and since consensus can change, it is perhaps always a good question to ask.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the straw poll went up a matter of hours ago. Wikipedia moves fast, but not that fast.--Tznkai (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The straw poll is not accurate IMO, as said above it focused on the most controversial content. It was written to where without a doubt a large number of people were going to pick African American. Nearly everyone treated it as if the question was should African American be replaced with black, bi-racial, etc.? The proposal suggested no such thing. I've tried my hardest to understand why the lead sentence cannot be more neutral, and honestly have not seen the first valid reason a combination could not be used. This isn't working people, are all of you willing to participate in the same discussion several times a week? It isn't fair to all of those that did not even get to participate in the discussion. Consensus can change and questions regarding this should not be closed immediately. Pretty much what everyone agrees is that African American should be in the lead. How many people actually have a problem with the lead mentioning biracial at all? Such as "From a bi-racial background he is the first African American President." If not bi-racial then just something, anything more neutral. Landon1980 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus surely can change, that is what the is what the poll is asking. Oh, my god. Why can't you get this through your head? Obama refers to himself as AA, the vast majority of the media refers to him as AA, and, so far, almost all of the editors who have voted in poll have said that they think it should refer to him as AA. I am assuming bad faith here, but I would be willing to lay good money that if the straw poll was going your way, you would be trumpeting the consensus that has been achieved. You proposed that the article mention that Obama is bi-racial, and editors have (for the most part) overwhelmingly rejected your proposal. Why won't you just drop it? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon, you cried for a discussion and now that it happened it's "not accurate"? What more do you want man? Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, the straw poll asked for the most controversial aspect of a change in a way not likely to produce good discussion.LedRush (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As evidence of what Obama refers to himself as, I offer you his profile on his website. He twice refers to himself as "African American", never as "bi-racial", never as "black", and never as "multi-racial". Do you not think that he is qualified to tell what his own ethnicity is? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for yet again ignoring what others say and attacking a strawman. No one here is saying he isn't african american or that the article shouldn't refer to him that way. NO ONE. Please try and participate honestly and constructively in conversations. If you're really busy with your college work, take a break from wikipedia and come back when you're relaxed and more willing to calmly and politely engage people. College can be stressful on some people.LedRush (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you [LedRush] tone it down a notch. Your comments are borderline uncivil, but more than that they are not conducive to discussion. Take a tea break or something. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but it is misplaced. I have remained civil despite a strong desire to file a Wikiquette alert against two different editors here. Just because your ideas seem to be in the majority doesn't mean you can act rudely and uncivilly, call people names, swear at them, and misrepresent others' ideas. Some people here need to do some soul searching (GRSZ, JDelaney, and, to a lesser extent, Tarc). I have remained polite, and remain so. Wuite honestly, your post coming right after mine asking someone to remain civil, seems uncivil (or at least inappropriate)LedRush (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A shame that you do not take your own advice, rather than just name-dropping those who hold a different opinion. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny that he only mentioned 3 names if he was name dropping. I realize you are the type to never admit to any wrongdoing, but you have been uncivil throughout this. Landon1980 (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying that another editor is "the type" of person to do something, in my opinion, comes very close to crossing the line of what constitutes a personal attack. It begs the question "what type is that, exactly?" Please comment on content rather than on contributors. We're here to discuss improving the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why have you not warned the users that actually crossed the line. I didn't see you warn Tarc for calling me insane, amongst other rude comments of his. What about the admin that said I wasn't capable of finding my nose? Why have you not warned him. There are many far worse civility breeches than those that are being warned for them. That is my point, and that is a double standard. Landon1980 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've searched the page for the word insane and the only result was the statement immediately preceding this. So, that remark must have been refactored or withdrawn. I hope this explains why I didn't comment on it. Personally, I prefer editors to use strikethruthrough to withdraw remarks, since this makes the page easier to understand for later readers, but never mind. I don't see incivility or personal attacks, provided they have been removed, as an ongoing problem. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Be sure and only warn the user that is "borderline" uncivil, pay no attention to the admin screaming at him in all Caps telling him he can't find his nose in front of his face. There is such a double standard on how things work around here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not taking sides, but it seems that the question was properly asked and the overwellming consensus was African American. There is no reason to believe that reformating the question will achieve a differant result. I actually don't like the term African American in any situation, because I believe it is a term invented by the politically correct to enslave the speach patterns of the masses. But I digress. I prefer the term black, but I'm not voting, so it doesn't matter, since I am not officially taking sides on this issue.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The question was asked about the lead, not the article. The whole thing was poorly done.LedRush (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, and I agree with you about the use of the term, but consensus was reached and is there any reason to believe that the result will be differant if the question is changed?--Jojhutton (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I believe there is, based on the conversations we had before the vote. However, based on a conversation below, I think I will be withdrawing my support for any change (even though I think it would make the article better). I am afraid these discussions open the door to worse discussions (though, who knows, maybe the compromise would shut the door). As usual, I am conflicted :)LedRush (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ASF

• The imho most crucial point has not been responded to by anyone so far. Why are we not following WP:ASF? Everyme 11:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does everyone keep ignoring this question? Landon1980 (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My best guess is that some don't understand that we may use sources which are non-authoritative for a particular piece of information only as primary sources to back up the assertion that this claim has been made, in this case that News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States, but not as secondary sources to back up the claim as fact, i.e. in this case the assertion that Obama is African American. Incidentally, there is no source in the article that could serve as a reliable secondary source for the latter assertion itself. Contrary to these quite simple and straightforward facts, some believe there is No need for modifiers - references do the job adequately and that the "apparent consensus" was about adhering to WP:ASF vs. ignoring that part of our core content policies -- which it was not, it was about which term to use. Not to mention that local consensus cannot possibly override any of the core content policies. RfC anybody? Everyme 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support an RFC, I'm not happy with 18 page watchers forming their own consensus. Wider community input is needed on this. Too many policies are being ignored here to not look for a solution somewhere. A lot of these people (I'll not mention names) have made it known they are die-hard Obamites, and they worry too much about what Obama would want. Correct me if I'm wrong but are BLP's usually centered around the living person's wishes? The truth is far, far, far more than 18 people have complained about the current state of the sentence in question. Even in the past week way more than 18 people, those of you that do not think this is true look for yourself. Landon1980 (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you guys saying that Obama is not African American or that we shouldn't describe him as such? You could never "prove" anyone's race because race is a fuzzy description, not made completely on biological attributes and there is no way to make a classification system that is even close to 100% accurate (and why would you want to?) If the movement to include some mention of Obama being by racial will also include any attempts to remove reference to him being African American, I am getting off that train fast. I support inclusions of his bi-racial (or other term) ancestry because it is true and because it can end these discussions. If the latter part isn't true, and the term is being used as an excuse to open the door wider to this type of discussion, I will strongly agree with the other editors to keep the article as is.

If I have misrepresented your views above, just ignore everything I said.LedRush (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We should take great care to follow our core content policies is all I'm saying. I could agree to including an overdue mention of his mixed heritage in the same sentence in the lead. But even more than that, I wonder why we cannot, as a start, amend the current formulation of the African American bit so as to avoid asserting non-authoritative opinions as facts. Either that, or I'd ask people who prefer the current assertion that Obama is African American to produce a source that can actually serve as an authoritative, reliable secondary source for that particular claim, which all the news media in the world can not. They can only serve as primary sources for the assertion that they have called him African American. Imho, and looking at the sources currently in the article, both amendments should be made. Seriously, what speaks against something along the lines of:

News media widely refer to Obama, who is of mixed heritage, as the first African American to be elected President of the United States.

? How is that less accurate than the current assertion? How does it reflect all the available sources less accurately than the current wording? How does it defy current consensus to cite the term "African American"? Everyme 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, couldn't we make that claim about virtually every person on the planet. Race is an unscientific and fuzzy idea. No one conducts tests to prove anyone in african-american, so we could never get a reliable source.LedRush (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he is definitely widely being refered to as the first African American to be elected U.S. President. That bit is uncontested fact, and we should formulate it accordingly. Everyme 15:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that part of your argument. I am asking "what if we accept that argument?" Couldn't we make that claim about virtually every person on the planet? No one conducts tests to prove anyone's race, so we could never get a reliable source. Wouldn't that mean that we could never refer to someone's race except through your formulation above?LedRush (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not as easy as that (but it makes for a neat strawman). In Obama's case, the fact that he is being widely referred to as the first African American to be elected U.S. President is the far more noteworthy aspect. Supplementing this with a simple and factually undisputable statement that he is of mixed racial heritage, should be the preferred course of action. Everyme 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you think I am making a strawman. That is not my intent. However, I would like you to answer my question: If we accept your argument, under what circumstances would we be able to refer to someone's race not using your formulation above?LedRush (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I answered it before you even posted it: Wherever there is an authoritative source that can actually serve as a secondary source for that particular claim. Now, please return the favour and explain how my wording is less accurate than the current one. And how does it defy any consensus on this talk page? Everyme 15:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So your answer is "never". OK. To answer your questions: 1. it's not less accurate (though it is a little weasel wordy); 2. I don't know...I've not paid attention to that argument because: a) I'm not interested in it; and b) I doubt it has any chance of being adopted. I hope that helps.LedRush (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my answer is wrong and therefore irrelevant. You are the one says there can never be a reliable secondary source for a claim like that, but you are entirely mistaken. Everyme 15:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to reply to this so late. I did actually note earlier that you'd made the point about WP:ASF applying to this case; unfortunately the only immediate reply to my post was a comment that "sources describe Obama..." would violate WP:WEASEL. Such is life. Given the weight of sources, I think a better proposal than those made above might be:

News media widely refer to Obama as the first African American to be elected President of the United States.

...with a footnote providing a few representative examples from prominent sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Halleluja. Thank you, I fully agree. Everyme 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Still a bit weaselly. =) There is no doubt that he is AA, so why qualify it? It isn't just news media, but primary sources, academia, etc. etc. --guyzero | talk 20:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it's incomplete and a little misleading. The truth is that nearly everybody in the US considers Obama African American. It is more than "widely" and it is not just news media. Inasmuch as race is a social construct (based on certain biological and ancestral factors, for which Obama qualifies) that is the same as saying that he is African-American. It would be a mess, and frankly, quite POV, to edit all of the articles about light-skinned and mixed race blacks (and while we're at it, Latinos and Native Americans) to say that they are widely considered to be part of their race. While we're at it, there are big debates about who is Jewish. I think a lot of people who self-identify as Jewish would be rather upset to be told that they are merely "widely considered" to be Jewish. This is just not a good way to treat race. If a group of people wants to stand on a soapbox and object to a racial classification, that is fine, but that kind of small minority position does not deserve a mention in instances where that classification occurs. Finally, semantically, the sentence seems to imply some support for a fringe theory - that Obama is in fact AA but he is not universally considered the first. Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Look you both, we're talking about this and everybody is talking about this because he is being widely referred to as the first African American to be elected President. We might not even be talking about including this in the lead if it weren't for the media referring to him as such. That's why it does indeed need to be qualified. You do apparently not understand the difference, but take my word and the word of our policy that the distinction exists and it is non-trivial. Everyme 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

By the media, by his party, by the GOP, by his own campaign, by himself................................. BUT not by WP?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused why you don't apply ASF to determine that he is widely referred to as African American because he IS African American? --guyzero | talk 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon and Guyzero...he is African American and the language implies something unintended (that he's AA but not universally regarded as the first.)

Also, where will this proposed language go. If in the lead, I disagree strongly. If in the body, I'm more "meh" on the subject.LedRush (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• My guess is, (seeing at least one editor being or having strong European roots) that what is normal for US here and non-offensive is seen as a somehow racist view at least in some major countries over there. I respect this but must also reject it as it is not an European issue.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying all non-Americans should be banned from this article and talk page indefinitely. I.e., unless they are in line with a "typical American viewpoint," whatever that may mean. Ok, message received. Everyme 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And a side note: Even African Americans accepted him as such after giving him (initially) a hard time" not being black enough in the primaries. Forgot about that?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Article has many flaws, suggestions for improvement

Removed discussion by indef blocked disruptive sockpuppet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please don't remove. An IP called it vandalism but it is clearly constructive. This is a featured article but it is not a good article. It has many flaws. It is hard to write because some people love him and want to make him sound like Jesus and others hate him and want to make him look like Hitler. Some key details are omitted and some not so important points are included. The political positions section should reflect his positions before becoming President. If there is disagreement, say so. If there is some change in positions, having only the new position would make Wikipedia a newspaper or possibly an Obama newsletter. This isn't right. There needs to be agreement now (not when there is a fight) about the length of the article. We can look at Bush or Clinton to see how long the Presidency part takes and then decide if we want a longer than normal article or we are going to cut it. If we cut stuff, then we have to be prepared to do major cutting. Are we prepared to do this? We should also keep an eye on other recent presidents and make sure that we don't treat articles differently. The excuse that problems in other articles don't justify doing the same thing shouldn't apply because presidential articles are edited a lot. Article length Support a longer than normal article. Support ImNotObama (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Have a long article but be prepared to do major cutting when his presidency section expands as he is president. Support ImNotObama (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Cut and create sub-articles. Support It is normal wikipedia practice to create sub-articles when the main article gets too long. I see no reason to change that practice in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Political Positions Keep much of what we have. Expand as needed. If there is a change, mention it. SupportImNotObama (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Have only his current political positions. It will be somewhat like news but so what. Oppose ImNotObama (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC) ImNotObama (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Comment Straw polls are used only when consensus is not clear after a lengthy discussion. Voting first, before discussion, is generally frowned on. J.delanoygabsadds 03:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC) And useless, as these "proposals" are nothing different than is already being done. Grsz11 →Review! 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I agree - this is not going to go anywhere. The options to vote on are not real choices. Further it is not good to start a discussion by accusing people of editing this article simply out of support or opposition to the person. Any discussion premised on that is not very useful. I suggest we close/archive this. Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trip to Kenya Section

Today I decided to be bold and add a valuable yet overlooked event in Obama's life. The trip he took to Kenya in 2006 to campaign on behalf of his cousin in "his" Presidential bid. I worded it as follows.

In August 2006 Obama travelled to to his fathers homeland in Kenya to campaign for his cousin Raila Odinga. Early that year Obama dispatched his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya to coordinate his visit. Upon arrival Obama and Odinga traveled together throughout Kenya and Obama spoke on behalf of Odinga at numerous rallies, declaring that "Kenyans are now yearning for change".

It contains two references, one from the Washington Times and one from the BBC. It has been deleted with WP:UNDUE cited as the reason. This implies the wording of the section is unbalanced. I would like input and suggestions as to what exactly is unbalanced in the above paragraph and what can be done to rectify it.

Surely this event is notable. It certainly has many high end sources like the ones included referencing it. I think it adds some flesh to Obama's foreign policy credentials, something he was attacked on by Sarah Palin during the Presidential campaign. Glen Twenty (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In a summary style biography article, new content needs to be weighed carefully to ensure it carries sufficient weight to belong in the main article, not one of the sub-articles. In this case, I'm not sure it does. Thank you, by the way, for bringing this up here, instead of edit-warring to insert it. I'm actually a little on the fence about it, and would like to see other people comment on whether this trip abroad merits mention in the main article. --GoodDamon 05:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The undue weight may be partly the nature of the main source: a highly slanted commentary - not a news story - from a POV source, in the heat of our Presidential election without any counterbalance. I would agree with GoodDamon that this is more properly placed in a sub article if anywhere. The coverage cited is not widespread and not at all clear that this is notable in his life, for placement in his biography. Also there is some question about whether Odinga is actually Obama's cousin, despite the BBC's citing Odinga. Tvoz/talk 08:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this (well written) paragraph is undue weight for this main biography. A sub-article would seem like a better place: but which sub-article? A lot of suggestions nowadays say generically "put it in the campaign article". That doesn't seem relevant for this (nor for that matter, do most topics now that the campaign is over). I'm starting to think that some other sort of sub-articles might be appropriate to focus on other aspects of the bio subject's life other than the campaign or senate career. Not sure how that might be divided or titled though. LotLE×talk 09:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Was this a trip in his official capacity as U.S. Senator? Perhaps the info should be in United States Senate career of Barack Obama.--Appraiser (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The truth is that the trip wasn't for any of these reasons. He just wanted to be able to see some lions and tigers, and was advised that there was only one place he could go to see them. True story [6] SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Why include an image of his signature?

Signature Image

I'm a bit disturbed about having a .JPG of the President-Elect's signature up on the website, listed as creative commons. Isn't that just inviting fraud, when anyone can make up a document with the President's signature on it, just by clicking the first link that comes up after a google search on his name? With great power comes great responsibility... 68.37.255.83 (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC) November 11, 2008, Tom

This is standard WP practice for all presidents. MFlet1 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are fools born every minute, who will believe anything. We can't be catering to them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to get snarky. It's a legitimate question by an outsider. Everyme 15:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone! Look at all the money I made selling autographed pictures of Obama on... *reads the above* Oh, damn...

But seriously, and here's a perhaps not legitimate question coming from an insider- why exactly is it standard wikipedia practice to include an image of the president's signature as part of his article? What could a reader possibly get from that that would do him or her any good, except access to the subject's bank account? ("So that's what happened to the rest of the campaign funds!") I understand older presidents, and especially folks who signed documents like the declaration, but I guess I'm just fuzzy on how a .jpg of his signature lends any insight into Barack Obama as a person, lawmaker, or tax-paying citizen? L'Aquatique[talk] 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Graphology? But for that it wouldn't have to be their signatures, could be The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. Wouldn't that be nice? Everyme 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Snark, snark. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't kill me for not knowing how to use Wiki, but... Through history, leaders and chieftains had almost a form of clout represented by the weapons they carried. In this day and age, at the very least in America, the signature of the president is that powerful symbol. It can grant someone life, it can take another's away. That signature can sway the lives of (at the very least) three hundred million people for better or worse. It's something that can be looked upon with awe in the manner, "That scribble signed "The Bill of XXXX" into law! What an amazing piece of history." 76.117.46.81 (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that now and especially when he becomes President, his signature (or a copy of it) can and will be very easily ascertained (any document he has or will sign into law). Thus the likelihood that having his signature on Wikipedia will lead to fraud is very small. --The Original Editor (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are more safeguards than just his signature when things like that are carried out. The signature is more symbolic than practical. Nar Matteru (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new rule

Few would disagree that there is much disagreement with this article.

I propose that all news must be 3 months ago (we can make it 1 month if people want it) before it can be in the article. The only exception would be extreme news, such as a heart attack or divorce or that he was sworn in on January 20th.

This way, we can discuss what is news and what is history.

People who want the latest on President-elect Obama can read CNN.com.

This will also reduce in-fighting.

Comments? Wikiangel1 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So you suggest we wait until early February before calling him President-elect and mentioning the election results. Well I disagree. The flaw of paper encyclopedia's is they get out of date so quickly and we would be shooting ourselves int he foot to follow this in any article. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But that's also the problem with Wikipedia; every up-to-the-minute update gets posted and articles become a random collection of facts and events. There's no oversight over what is "encyclopedic". Chuthya (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea is not all that bad and I've thought about similar rules in the past, e.g. as regards current news events, some of which get three or more entire articles in the first few hours. But I agree with SqueakBox that no such rule could ever be enforced. The spirit of the wiki is to keep it rapidly updated, however much sense it makes in some cases (live scores for sports matches etcpp). Everyme 20:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't do that. Some news might be clearly "sticking" forever, others don't. Therefore we have to evaluate new developments on a base by base occasion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice about this sort of thing already exists at WP:RECENT, which is frequently invoked by regular editors trying to keep tabs on such transient stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right -we don't need an arbitrary new rule. We need to use common sense and some judgment, and discussion with other editors. Tvoz/talk 20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the opposite, but just in the form of something to keep in mind, not a rule. Namely, if it happened more than three months ago chances are it does not need to be changed. This is already a featured article, and unless something new has come to light about a past event, it is probably described pretty well as it is. As a general rule, possibly 90% of all proposed edits to all featured articles are good faith bad ideas - simple mistakes, poor wording, undue weight, trivia, matters that have already achieved consensus, etc. Before jumping in and thinking "this is a problem, I must fix it at once" it's helpful to take a moment to ask yourself why the article is worded the way it is, and whether other editors have already thought it through. Wikidemon (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but not terribly optimistic that it'll happen. Tvoz/talk 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what most editors here are saying. Wikipedia is not news. That principle is established, and we can use it to guide our discussions. Of course, the original poster may not have known about this particular principle, and I think that as good faith suggestions go, this is far from the worst I've seen. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This article has rules that other articles don't, like the 1Rev/Revert rule. I think several people's comments are good. Having a 3 month rule might not be exactly what we need but having the 1 month rule (proposed, too) keeps news out but keeps the article encyclopedia.

I think the "after 3 months, nothing can be changed" is not a good idea because I see a lot of sections that could be improved with grammatical changes, tweaks in information, some more important information replacing the less important stuff.

The problem with WP:NOT#NEWS is that it can create unnecessary tension and conflict. Editor A say "Obama did this". Editor B says "WP:NOT NEWS", which can be in a hostile tone and a start of confrontation. If we have an informal agreement that things need to be a month old, then we get rid of the hot news gossip and the accompanying disagreements on whether it's notable.

In short, I support a 1 month requirement to assess notability except in extreme unusual news. After one month, we'll know if something is notable. ImNotObama (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't set a rule that isn't binding or simply said, even so it would be nice in general if people would follow the "not news" policy, there are plenty who just won't. Unfortunately a section with good intention that won't change anything.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A simple approach would be to restrict "news" on bios to what could be called "life-changing events". I say on bios because you can't have such a rule for fluid articles like a sports season, for example. However, such a rule is not only unenforceable, it also violates the "everyone can edit" policy. The restrictions on this particular article are appropriate. Trying to add more rules would just accelerate edit warring, which would not benefit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox needs changing

Michelle Obama is listed as spouse in the article infobox. John McCain's article list Cindy Hensley, not Cindy McCain, in that infobox.

I propose changing it to Michelle Robinson.

If there is strong opposition, then those people should change it to Cindy McCain. I can live with that.

We need to treat people fairly and do things the same way. ImNotObama (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the normal rule on spouse names in infoboxes? Is the default the maiden name, or the name they are most commonly known by, or something else? We should follow the rule, whatever it is. If you feel that the McCain article does not follow the rule you can take that up over there. Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's listed as "Laura Bush" in the George W. Bush article. Maybe the McCain article is the outlier here? --Aeon17x (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure know the "rule" in a previous discussion was to include their maiden name in their spouses article's info box.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the 20th century Presidents there's a total mix, with some displaying maiden names, some married names as best known and some displaying the Forename Maiden-name Married-name format even if they didn't actually use that. If there's a single default it's not actually being followed. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course and that falls under wp:other stuff exists what I already mentioned in another thread. Taking a look at the recent election (and that's what we should focus on) it shows, that we did not go with "other crap exists". So what's your point? I wasn't talking about a long-term default.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is a rejoinder used too often (especially when calling for consistency with other stuff). I am a great believer in the consistent presentation of information and an opponent of recentism. From an encyclopedic point of view the obvious comparison is with the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter etc... not with the unsuccessful candidates. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I think consistency in articles is a plus but also not the only way to go. I'm comparing (and I said this before) the recent main articles about this years election and that would be, again, John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. So I'm referring to the recent time and history, meaning this year, this election. If you think it was done wrong you're a little bit late to bring this up. Sid you read my last comment called "hold your breath" at [7] here on the same page you're posting? If not you might want to do this before replying further.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough when a talkpage is used so heavily that it gets about 500 new comments a day it's hard to keep track of every variable thread. But having looked at it now (for all that it says) the template details just say:

Name of spouse(s), followed by years of marriage. Use the format Name (1950-present) for current spouse and Name (1970-1999) for former spouse(s). Separate entries with a line break (br/).

So it doesn't help us at all here, although the example shows "Melinda Gates" not "Melinda French" (or even "Melinda French Gates").

I completely reject the idea that the main valid comparisons are with other candidates in this election. That is typical recentism. There doesn't seem to be a clear guidance on this at all so making changes on the basis of dubious consistency is flawed. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Brick wall

I've created this new section in response to the continued "African American" discussion above, so that I might have something to bang my head against. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, and I hope you enjoy yourself. Landon1980 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not as much as you and your troll buddies are enjoying it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

People tampering with the definition of Obama's ethnic identity? That's change I can't believe in. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Knock yourself ou... oh. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to borrow your brick wall. It's definitely beginning to reach the point of tendentiousness and a certain selectivity with facts, policies, and guidelines. --GoodDamon 03:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean in that the lead completely ignores one of our core policies I agree. How have you all determined African American is more notable than mixed heritage? What exactly are the numbers of reliable sources that mention his mixed heritage in some way? What are the numbers for African American? Landon1980 (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am certain that Landon1980 started out with a well-meaning intention. But after this many thousands of words of contentious arguing, apparently intended to simply wear out all the other editors who tire of repeating the same points for the thousandth time, it has crossed into pretty active disruption.

At this point I am starting to wonder if some kind of ANI or other administrative forum (maybe user RfC) would help urge Landon1980 in more productive directions. Perhaps even in the form of a brief topic ban since this is obviously going nowhere.

However right he no doubt feels for pursuing the truth, there is simply not a snowball's chance in hell that the change he wants is going to reach consensus, or even bare majority, and probably not every reach more than a very slim minority position (say 20% of editors agreeing, to be generous).LotLE×talk 06:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not out for truth, everything I have proposed is verifiable. No one has actually ever responded to any valid points myself and many others have made. Everyone brings up due weight, but the truth is no one knows how many reliable sources are out there for African American, and how many there are for verifying his mixed heritage. As I said before, a lot more than 18 regulars have had the same concerns. Lets try asking this question on the Mccain talk page and see what kind of response we get. It is clear that most of these people are biased about this. I feel that is wrong, I honestly think the article should be neutral. I'm not the only person discussing this. You are going to suggest I am banned from an article I have never edited the mainspace on? Just kindly inform me of whatever action you take. The same people pool against editors like myself in a handful at a time and call it consensus. I really feel like if we could get a wider community response consensus would be different. Landon1980 (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that no editor has ever written "no on responded to my valid points" in response to a long thread who wasn't far too wrapped up in WP:TRUTH. I know you started this out with good faith, but you really are simply disrupting this talk page now. Give it a breather. Obama will still be just as much or little "bi-racial" in two weeks, and the frustration and animosity you've instilled in most others here will at least have dissipated.... and frankly, if readers need to read two sentences past the lead to discover the urgent WP:TRUTH you are trying to inform them of, no great harm will be done. Seriously: you have better things to do with yourself. LotLE×talk 06:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They built straw men, there is a difference. Due weight is just an excuse to keep it out of the lead. Like I said though, if you feel I'm that disruptive take it up at the appropriate venue. Just let me know when and where, have a good evening. Landon1980 (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Landon, with all due respect, you're not seeing the consensus that exists here and that's leading others (and yourself) to get very frustrated. You've claimed due weight isn't applicable, and said no one has responded to your valid points when this page is literally covered in discussion over the issue. If you look at your edits from the last few days, you have made almost 200 edits solely on this topic. You comment here and also on the talk page of anyone you feel has wronged you. I understand you're upset at some of the treatment you've received here, but you should understand that sometimes the best way to handle these things is just to let them slide. If someone calls you a troll, being combative to the point of disruption isn't really the way to show them you're a productive editor. I know you came here in good faith, but as I advised you on your talk page days ago (and you blanked and ignored), it might be best to take a step back and edit some other page for a while just to let things calm down. I offer this advice in good faith. Dayewalker (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "Brick Wall," how come no mention - either in the article itself or even here - of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all the controversy surrounding Mr. Obama's twenty-year membership in the Rev. Wright's flock and his two-decades-long exposure to pastoral messages that could only be construed as being charged with racial hatred? Mr. Obama's efforts to scrape the Rev. Wright off his shoes during the election campaign are certainly detailed on the Wikipedia site for that individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.157.117 (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rush, the election's over. Live with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

presidential codename

according to BBC. should these be included, or should we create a new article about presidential codename?
[8]
w_tanoto (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How about creating a new section about this at President of the United States?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is kind of pointless trivia to have any discussion of presidential codenames at all, honestly, even though it has been in the news. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet, it could fit in the existing "Secret Service" section in President of the United States.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the best option is to add it to Secret Service. I know I started this topic, but it should not be me who add it, as I am unfamiliar with US topic. I am Indonesian living in UK, and have limited American knowledge. w_tanoto (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What next - do we follow the media if the search for news forces them to talk about the candidates' socks? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more interested in presidential cuff-links. --GoodDamon 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly enough, that's not too far off the mark. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article makes clear that this information being public isn't really a big issue, given that the Secret Service use encrypted communications. If the source says it's not all that big a deal, I am tempted to agree. Perhaps some day multiple sources will decide that codenames are important and interesting enough write at length on the subject, and then we'll be able to write a good verifiable article on it, but I don't think that time has come yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: The candidates' socks?? I must say, if either Obama or McCain has been running around Wikipedia using multiple accounts to edit disruptively, I would think that would be quite major news! If you have evidence, I suggest you call the Associated Press right aw---

Oh. That type of socks. Nevermind. :p --Jaysweet (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note... I read the BBC article, and I agree it's not nearly notable enough to appear here. Possibly it might be interesting under Secret Service, but care would have to be taken that it wasn't just a bit of fun trivia. I haven't read that article so I don't know where it might fit in, but maybe... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It might also go in Presidency of Barack Obama.--Appraiser (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it as a notable fact for an article about his presidency. --GoodDamon 16:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Secret Service code names are quite notable, and are interesting. Maybe it's a Washington wonky thing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There's already an article at Secret Service codename. Deor (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've just added a short "use of codenames" section here: [9] .--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

thank you w_tanoto (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did it for WP but of course only after you pointed it out (and also took all the postings above in consideration).  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Trimming time

Now that the election is over, the section on the Presidential campaign is looking too long again. I believe that we should try to get it down to about half its current length, or at the least about 2/3 the length. If nothing else, I think expansion of his actions as President-elect (and soon, as President) will inevitably grow much more material. Keeping the overall length roughly constant is desirable. We're within WP:LENGTH recommendations now, but only because of some fairly merciless use of scissors over the last months. We need to keep at that. LotLE×talk 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You go girl, ahm, I mean guy of course. You're right, it's time to start shortening. Just don't go over the top and (as you already did), keep on doing it step by step for easy following.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

I just found 4,490,000 Google hits for "Barak" , and 119 million for "Barack". The spelling -ack and the pronunciation -ock (American English) are not compatible. Two simple questions: 1) Does Obama object if people pronounce "Barack" to rhyme with "sack, back" etc.? 2) Does Obama object if people write it as "Barak"? Maybe somebody knows, maybe not...Jakob37 (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted somewhere in this mega-megillah, he himself pronounces it brrAHK ohBAHmuh. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That was not my question; as I noted (before it was archived somewhere), it is not uncommon for people to tolerate, and then even imitate other people's mispronunciation of their name, in order not to "make waves".Jakob37 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Public figures can't afford to make a thing out of how their names are pronounced or spelled. Trying to manage the behavior of others is not the way to increase record sales - or votes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If we look at the Arabic source, and the way his father (presumably) chose to spell it, I suspect it was originally "Bah-rack", but it seems the general public changed it into "Buh-rock", and the practical-minded politician followed suit.Jakob37 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that, it's the way American English tends to slur things. He himself says "BrrAHK", the way most any American would. Consider other foreign-sounding names: The proper way to say "Iran" and "Iraq" is roughly "ear-ahn" and "ear-ahk". But how often have you heard Americans say "eye-ran" and "eye-rack"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Validity of the term 'President Elect'

Calling Barack Obama president-elect because of "consensus" is the most retarded thing I ever heard. You can agree on it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that YOU ARE WRONG. Basically what you're saying is that if I rounded up enough people to form a consensus I could change this article to say that Obama was a woman. This is not a gray issue and cannot be treated as such.

If, God forbid, Obama died before December 15, Joe Biden would not automatically get Obama's Electoral College votes. Why? Because, in the eyes of the constitution, Barack Obama is merely a US Senator.

Second, Obama is not the first African-American president. Warren G. Harding had enough African-American blood to be recognized as black in the eyes of the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"The most retarded thing" you've ever heard? You must not get out much. Check Limbaugh's website sometime, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a collection of information from reliable published sources, not an arbiter of truth, and certainly not a publisher of original material. Indeed, the basis for inclusion of material here is explicitly stated to be verifiability, not truth. If the overwhelming majority of sources refers to Obama as president-elect, and as African American, then we will probably do so too. Of course, if you know of a reliable source that clearly states exactly why everyone else is wrong about this (as distinct from arguments that you make yourself) then by all means say so. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been a lot of rumors and speculation about 4 or 5 past Presidents having partial African American roots. This peaked my curiosity a few days ago, but all it pretty much amounts to is rumors. I looked for a couple hours and couldn't find anything definitive. I saw several say this was highly likely regarding Harding, Jackson, and some others but that was it. I doubt anyone coulod ever prove this, or find a reliable source for it. Landon1980 (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This mish-mash of half-truths and conspiracy theory really had no place in a Wikipedia article. If a president-elect dies before the Electoral College vote, no one truly can say what would happen, as there are a wide variety of state laws covering whether or if Electors can deviate from their state's vote. As to the second part regarding Harding, that one or two of his grand-parents may have been African-American is based on a single, quite controversial, and not widely accepted historian's account. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If a president-elect died before December 15, by federal law no posthumous votes count. This means Obama would not be president. The federal policy in place allows the DNC to nominate a new candidate to replace Obama. I might concede the Harding point, but there is no room for argument on the issue of Obama being president-elect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. To be blunt, it really doesn't matter if WHAT WE THINK IS WRONG. What matters is that we are doing the job of an encyclopedia and of Wikipedia, and that is reporting what everyone in reliable sources says, and what is commonly accepted by the academic community, not you theories and worldviews that you KNOW ARE RIGHT. After a person is elected president, they are called the president-elect. What you believe to be the racial ancestry of the 29th president is quite irrelevant here, unless reliable sources agree with you. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such federal law, as this matter of Electoral votes is entirely for the states to decide. That is why if such a scenario happened it would be an unpredictable mess, as some states would hold Electors to vote for whoever won their state, while others would be technically free to vote as they like. Either way, none of this has any place in this article. Tarc (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Proof:http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/politics.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-11-12-0198.html

No ballot has been cast for Obama yet. We elected a slate of electors, not the man. Read the constitution.Adamc714 (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Adamc714, the point I wanted to make is that Harding being African American is just a rumor that was never really proven true or false. Here is a pretty good article about it if you are interested. Landon1980 (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop the Harding point completely. But I will not drop the president-elect point because the constitution is so blatantly clear on the issue.Adamc714 (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To be able to say "the sources are wrong" it isn't really enough to provide primary sources (e.g. the US Constitution) unless the interpretation of those sources is so simple as to be beyond question. We really need secondary sources to interpret those primary sources. In other words, what we really need is for a respected magazine or newspaper to write an article that says, "you know, everyone calls him president-elect but he's not really" and "he isn't really the first black president". We can't just say that we know such-and-such to be true and we also can't combine sources saying different things to deduce a conclusion which is different to what those sources say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your argument. Will this source work even though it isn't a news publication?

Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale, says in his boom "America's Constitution: A Biography:" "Contemporary culture contributes to America's ignorance about the Electoral College...Take, for instance, the term 'president-elect.' We are so eager to annoint a new leader we oft forget that the president-elect is not actually elected until December, when the Electoral College meets...Essentially, we modern Americans have grown too liberal with our terminology; the president-elect is no actually so until the official ballots are counted. Ater all, the Electors always have the potential to surprise us all." (p. 237) I know I can't get this online, but this is a scholarly book. Does this further my argument at all?Adamc714 (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying, and you may very well be correct. However, wikipedia is based on verifiablity, not truth. Pretty much all the sources we have call him the president-elect, so ther really isn't anything we can do about it. I hope that made sense. Landon1980 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good source. I think perhaps a footnote could be added to the term "president elect" in the lead section, to explain this. That might make everyone happy (or at least, everyone might be willing to accept it). What do others think? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. That would really clarify everything for all readers. I understand the point you are making with verifiability, not truth, being the foundation, but this footnote would be both verifiable and true.Adamc714 (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I could live with it, sounds like a good idea. Landon1980 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The US law covering Presidential transitions recognises Obama as President elect. The actual link to the law was buried somewhere in the archives in a previous discussion. If by US law he is recognised as President elect then he is. Dr.K. (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mind sharing that link? Landon1980 (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

[10] Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks Grsz. Here's another link and the quote:

The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2.

From the law. Dr.K. (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's TRUE, but can you verify that the Administrator has ascertained Obama as such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs)

Well, they did just have him over. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

From President-elect "Strictly speaking, a person cannot become U.S. president-elect without having won the balloting in the Electoral College; since the ballots are not counted until Jan. 6, the winner is only president-elect for 15 calendar days until taking office Jan. 20. However, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 provides that the Administrator of the General Services Administration[1], even before the electoral vote in December, may certify the apparent successful presidential and vice-presidential candidates of the November general election as "president-elect" and "vice-president elect" for the purposes of receiving presidential transition funds and the use of federal offices and communications services prior to the beginning of the new administration on January 20. The current President-elect of the United States of America is Barack Obama." Landon1980 (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts):Just to be clear, I made the same point as Adamc until I found and posted the law referenced above. While I dropped the issue, I recognize that the law only serves to define the term for the purposes of that specific law (as is usual for laws and contrancts). If the term is incorrect in other venues (particularly the US constitution which cannot be changed by federal (or any other) law), it may still be worth a mention. I don't believe this issue should make it into the article itself, but a footnote couldn't hurt. However, because at least some laws define the term to include presumptive winners, and because virtually all of the media refers to Obama as president-elect, I don't think the issue is really that important to include. But as a footnote, it couldn't hurt.LedRush (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Reply to Adam: Yes I can. From the de facto actions of the administrator. He gave Obama the change.gov website to facilitate the transition. However this is irrelevant as it is clear that there is another interpretation of the term "President elect" not deriving from the Constitution. Dr.K. (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Could there still not be a footnote with a brief explanation. Looks like they have just certified him as president-elect for transitional purposes, even though it is not yet official. Landon1980 (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be. That text would need a consensus discussion as well. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Have any suggestions? Landon1980 (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the publication date of the Yale source? Does it predate the 1963 law? Also the President-elect has been edited without citing any source to backup its "strictly"..."cannot" claim. Its original research without citation and should be rolled back accordingly unless this Yale cite suffices. Modocc (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Reply to Landon: Such footnote would carry legal and constitutional arguments in a tiny space and would confuse the reader. Such discussion is better undertaken at the President-Elect article. Dr.K. (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't these technicalities be brought up on the President-elect article? This whole thing could be resolved by including a snippet in that article about when President-elect technically begins and when it begins in widespread usage. I don't see why this needs to be sorted out here at all. --GoodDamon 04:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is the logical conclusion of my remarks just above :) Dr.K. (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course. My arguments are always logical conclusions. :) Seriously, this is a lot of sound and fury over nothing much. No change needs to be made to this article at all. Not even a footnote. It's the wrong article for defining the term. It's use is widespread in the news media, and correct by U.S. law. Enough said. Get the technicalities into the correct article, and anyone interested in those technicalities can read it. --GoodDamon 04:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I also think that the author of the cite is clearly stating his own opinion and not a consensus opinion, thus would require additional sources anyway. Modocc (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We have other cites in the archived discussion.LedRush (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Led Rush you are going need to trot them out here at the president-elect article if you want this to go further. Seriously. Modocc (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe a footnote is appropriate to clarify everything. This is critical information that needs mentioning. Also, the Yale source is from 2005.Adamc714 (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(2 ecs)How about something like: "While Obama has been named the president-elect by virtually all media outlets and the office of the ______ under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, some have interpreted the Constitution to say that a candidate cannot become the president elect until the vote of the college of electors are counted on January 6th. For more information see president-elect." LedRush (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't official yet, I really don't see how a footnote could harm anything. The footnote could say something like "Though not offically voted in until December 15, he has been certified by ____ for transitional purposes" Landon1980 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec):First you don't mention the law at all. It is the 1963 law of transition that determines this not the administrator. Second it would be awkward to have a mini legal-constitutional argument inside a footnote. Third if by law he is declared the President Elect then that's what he is. Dr.K. (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But of course we could add the 1963 law to the footnote. I'll amend my suggestion above.LedRush (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First, the 1963 law allows for the administrator to determine who the president elect is for the purposes of the allocation of transition funds; Second, there is no mini legal constitutional arguemt; Third, the law defines a term as for use in the law. Nothing more.LedRush (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. So we agree he is the President Elect. Dr.K. (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified my statement above so people cannot, either deliberately or not, misrepresent what I said.LedRush (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly happens on December 15 then? If it is already official why does the electoral college even meet? Landon1980 (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the golden question of American elections. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 04:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To validate the election results after the administrator's validation as provided by the 1963 law. Dr.K. (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The electoral college meets for the purposes of the constitutional transition of power. The 1963 law deals only with the logistics of the transition (funds and whatnot). If the winner of the election dies before the Dec 15 vote or after, there are vastly different possible consequences.LedRush (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, under law, Barak Obama is the PE regardless of the possible disaster scenarios. Dr.K. (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction...under one law, Obama is the PE. Under the constitution, it seems he isn't.LedRush (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No so fast Led. I thought the Constitution was just a framework for the laws. The laws determine our actions. If the law is declared unconstitutional then I would be convinced. Dr.K. (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. But this law limits the definition to this law alone. See: "The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act"LedRush (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This law was passed and is recognised by the US government. Therefore in the eyes of the government and for the purposes of transition he is the PE. That makes him official. Dr.K. (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is the President-elect until or if some calamity arises. And it becomes official January 6th, not December 15th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

They pretty much go ahead and certify him for the purposes of transition, as the apparent president-elect. It will not be official until the elecoral college meet. This is proof that some readers are going to question this, so I really don't see the harm of a brief footnote. Landon1980 (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not official until the joint session, on January 6th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionally official. Officially recognised by the government, by virtue of the 1963 law, throughout the transition. Dr.K. (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. It's "apparent" until January 6th, and "official" at that point, and either way the law regards him as President-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like "apparent". It sounds like "presumptive". I would prefer "legal" or "officially recognised by the government". Dr.K. (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The legal use of "President-elect" encompasses both the "apparent" winner (from November 4th) and the "official" winner (coming on January 6th) hence there is no need for a prefix such as "presumptive" or whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I disagree. We have a legally and officially recognised PE for the purpose of transition, not an apparent one. And then he becomes a constitutionally recognised PE in January. No need for footnotes. Dr.K. (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is not all of this dealt with by wikilinking President-elect? If you're curious what this means, click the link. If not, don't. This seems much better than a footnote. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Dr.K. (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is clear there is a distinct possibility that some readers may be under the impression he is the presumptive president-elect and be confused by this, while fully knowing what a president-elect is. A footnote could briefly explain the issue. What harm could a simple footnote do? Landon1980 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How could they be confused if everyone is calling him "President Elect" without the "presumptive"? Dr.K. (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care enough about this issue to argue my position repeatedly. If you think a footnote would somehow harm the article then fine, I don't really care either way. I was simply taking the reader into consideration. I've heard a lot of people talk about how he will not actually be the president-elect until a later date, the question is googled very frequently. To me, if there is a pretty good possibility the reader may have questions about this a simple footnote is warranted. Again though, I don't care enough to sit here and debate about it for hours. So I'll drop out of this now and you just do whatever you wish. Landon1980 (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A footnote after the linked President-elect, explaining it in one simple sentence for those who don't feel like reading the President-elect megillah, would seem reasonable. Especially as there have been editors here who didn't understand it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The confusion arises because there are two definitions of President Elect. One is the legal definition for the purposes of transition and the other is the constitutionally enabled definition. Both are valid. But one way or the other the title of the President Elect is to be used without qualifiers. A footnote is a kind of qualifier. In its small space and with the small sized font this point cannot be elucidated in a satisfactory manner and it will confuse the reader further. That's why we have wikilinks. Dr.K. (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

←Per Dr.K. That is why we have wikilinks. And, to take the point one step further - there are likely a couple of dozen articles that are now correctly referring to Obama as President elect, with wikilink to that article. Maybe more. Is anyone seriously suggesting that each one should have a footnote explaining this arcana - or should I add a footnote here that explains that it's actually arcanum?? This is an absurdity, as only Wikipedia can do - we're talking about a few weeks of this slightly ambiguous time, and all sources - all of them - refer to him as President-elect. We are certainly on safe ground, and following our mandate, using the terminology that all sources use, and we link to an article whose job it is to explain in greater detail precisely how it works. It does not matter that lots of people won't follow the link - it is there for readers to learn from, just as all of the others are. Our job is to be clear, neutral, concise, sourced, well-expressed, comprehensive - not to overrule commonsense widespread, sourced phrasing in favor of a technicality, however accurate it might be. All that footnote will do is confuse, not elucidate. And it will be moot in a few weeks, and then moot again on January 20. But we'll probably be arguing about it until then. Tvoz/talk 06:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reference. Arcane, as you put it, but interesting discussion nonetheless. All this ado about a footnote. Eventually vanishing at that. Quintessentially Wikipedian angst. Dr.K. (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether you think the footnote is needed or not, ask if the question: Is the article better for having the footnote? I feel like the people who don't want it seem to think it's unnecessary. It doesn't really make it worse, it's just not "right". The people who want it, though, think it makes the article better and more accurate. Couldn't we just add the footnote and end the talks that keep popping up. My suggestion above still seems appropriate: "While Obama has been named the president-elect by virtually all media outlets and adminstrator of the office of the transition under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, some have interpreted the Constitution to say that a candidate cannot become the president elect until the vote of the college of electors are counted on January 6th. For more information see president-elect."LedRush (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Way too much, too wordy. All you need is President-elect as it is in the sentence, with a footnote right after it that says (down below) something like, "Obama is legally considered the "apparent" President-elect, which would become official once the electoral votes are certified by joint session of Congress on January 6th, 2009." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me.LedRush (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs you keep talking about "apparent". He is not "apparent". He is the legally recognised President Elect. There is no "apparent" qualification in this. Dr.K. (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The legal definition is that "President-elect" is understood to mean the "apparent" winner based on the November 4th voting. Hence there is no need to say "presumptive President-elect", for example, because "President-elect" is already understood to include "presumptive", as applicable - until it becomes "official" on January 6th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You called it, I quote from your comments above: legally considered the "apparent" President-elect. In the 1963 law there is no mention of "apparent" regarding the term "President elect". They just call him "President elect". So yes the 1963 law refers to an "apparent winner" but not "apparent" President-elect". Dr.K. (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

President-elect is a wikified term and is already used as such in this article. That term's Wikipedia article is the correct place for any and all explanation anyone finds necessary. Flatterworld (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What if they don't want to read that entire article and just want a simple explanation? It's just a courtesy to the reader. Keep in mind we do this encyclopedia for the reader, not for ourselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If he is the legally recognised President Elect that should suffice. If they want to understand the nuances they read the PE article. A footnote is not the place to disambiguate constitutional/legal matters. Dr.K. (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He is legal for the purposes of the 1963 Transition Act. In terms of actual succession, he is not legal.LedRush (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hence the usefulness of an explanatory footnote. The constitution does not define the term "President-elect". The 1963 law does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely.LedRush (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not its purpose. Its purpose would be simply to inform. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Response to Led: I agree. So if he is the legally recognised President Elect for transition purposes no need to disambiguate further in this article. Any further disambiguation can happen at the PE main article. In other words if he can legally be called "President Elect" even for temporary transition purposes and his legal status as such is fine we don't have to exhaustively define all the uses and nuances of the term in this article and especially in the limited confines of a footnote. Dr.K. (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the harm in the footnote. It accurately informs in one simple sentence. If people are interested slightly but don't want to weigh through the confusing PE article, they can see the footnote and understand. If people don't care, they'll never notice. If people care slightly and get interested in the PE article, then they can go there. There are only benefits to the footnote, no drawbacks. Baseball Bugs is correct: the purpose here is to inform.LedRush (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Let's assume you write a footnote. Your proposed footnote "While Obama has been named the president-elect by virtually all media outlets and the office of the ______ under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, some have interpreted the Constitution to say that a candidate cannot become the president elect until the vote of the college of electors are counted on January 6th. For more information see president-elect" is a mini rebuttal argument against the legally accepted term for the transition. This needs a lot of work if it is to appear in a short and concise footnote. If we can find a suitable wording maybe. But not the way it currently stands. Dr.K. (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it appears to be making a pedantic argument or apology. Which is why I say it should read simply, "Obama is legally considered the "apparent" President-elect, which would become official once the electoral votes are certified by joint session of Congress on January 6th, 2009." It's not an attempt at an apology of some kind, it's simply an explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs. If you modify your suggestion to read: "Obama is considered the President-elect according to the 1963 transition act, a term which would become constitutionally validated once the electoral votes are certified by joint session of Congress on January 6th, 2009." I am in agreement. Dr.K. (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a little more formalized and is merely informational without being apologetic, so it seems reasonable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I've said all along, a simple footnote is a good idea. It should be informative, and as brief as possible. Landon1980 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perfect then. Let's add it. Dr.K. (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah!LedRush (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Landon1980 (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. I just added it. Nice meeting you gentlemen. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

One sidenote: I added the footnote after the period as per WP:MOS. It could not be attached to "President elect" because there is no punctuation mark following it. Dr.K. (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is he truly the president elect if the electors have not cast their votes? A few faithless electors and he will remain a senator. I don't the the political process is over until those votes are cast, are they?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It will not happen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You might misunderstand. I am not speculating as to how the electors may or may not cast their votes. What I'm saying is that if the constitutional process has not completed to elect a president, how can he truly be the president elect. It is more a question of if it is accurate to so call him, not to as if he won the popular vote or not.I think this the process has a little more to go before that edit should have be made( hell what did all my political science profs know?). Maybe " president elect(presumptive)" or some such thing.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the discussion, we have already covered all of this. Landon1980 (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I'm a little concerned that the same discussion is going on in multiple places with different outcomes that impair overall consistency. One of the least used resources on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Post-election edit war syndrome that has been trying to get a policy on how to handle the aftermath of elections, after heavy edit wars following changes of power in Australia, Canada, Lousianna etc... The current suggestions were drawn up without much reference to the multi-step US election (indeed the suggested use of "President-elect" was to dampen down the "Rudd won the election, CHANGE THIS NOW!!!" type edits everywhere) so I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Post-election edit war syndrome#Multiple stage elections in the hope for the long term we can get a clearer way forward for future elections. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers, I thought this president-elect dispute was settled, 'bout a week ago. Just think, it could go on for another month (as the Electoral College meet Dec 15); yikes. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It ain't over until the proverbial weight-challenged lady sings. Just look above. Moreover I think this could go all the way to 6 January. Dr.K. (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fomented in part by editors who hold out hope that the electoral college will screw the voters. That hasn't happened since about 1876. The electors are party loyalists. Who does anyone imagine they would turn the Presidency over to? Hillary Clinton? Ralph Nader? Or Sarah Palin, just as a practical joke on America? Come on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The dispute won't go beyond Dece 15th. Nor do I believe presumptive president-elect is being pushed by anti-Obama editors (as far as the Constitution is concerned, nobody's been elected prez or vice prez [yet]). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "hold out hope" is too strong. "Fantasyland" is more like it. And it's not December 15th, it's January 6th. I don't recall for sure from 2004, but I don't think the electoral results are made public until the 6th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"is a Christian"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Totoro33 (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC) It's rather loaded to claim in the article that Obama "is a Christian"... he is NOT by many people's standards. It can simply be changed to, "claims to be Christian".

Um, no. Please read this, this, and this. L'Aquatique[talk] 09:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New vote on lead image

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2 original version
• Image 2 edited - currently in article
  Image 2 edited - currently in article

Image 3 is a copyvio and has been removed.--chaser - t 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to begin a new vote on the lead image. "Image 2" won the vote during the last round, since I think people were mainly looking at the small little thumbnail version. As you see from the article, that picture looks terrible at full size because the way the light relfects off his mouth and and upper lip just looks very weird (like he has a runny nose or something). I would like to now have a revote, this time on the 3 images above. The third image had not been introduced until late in the voting process last time, so I don't think it had a fair chance. --Jleon (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Note Image 2 original has the flash reflection issues described, Image 2 edited, which is currently in the article, has had these issues addressed. Mfield (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Vote

• Image 1 This is the most simple, straight forward picture available without any lighting or reflection problems. --Jleon (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Image 2 edited Image 1 is dull and passport/mugshot like, and image 3 has poor lighting and noise issues. Mfield (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Image 2 I stand by my reason at the voting last time: it shows US flag, and overall better. Correct me if I am wrong, but was Image 3 removed because of copyright problem? w_tanoto (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Image 1. Compared to #2: Less compositional complexity, doesn't look away from article, doesn't have visual artifact of light on lip that looks like mucus (unattractive even though I know it's just lighting). #1 just feels like a more neutral and straightforward image rather than some "dramatic" strike-a-pose. LotLE×talk 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  Followup: the touchup was nicely done, but I still prefer #1 for the rest of the reasons I stated. LotLE×talk 21:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image 1 - And yes, image 3 has copyright issues and should be removed immediately. --GoodDamon 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'll see if I can further fix image 2 to remove the remaining glare. Mfield (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Make sure your cache is cleared/you force refresh. Mfield (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image 1. I never liked the quality and layout of # 2 otherwise it would be a nice image and since # 3 has a copyright problem I'll stick with the "original" one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Image 2 edited. Like I mentioned here last week (or the week before, who knows), the other pictures look like he has snot running down from his nostrils and over his bottom lip. It's utterly disgusting that such a blatantly offensive picture was ever put in the article. The grotesque lighting and ill conceived presentation leaves my stomach rolling... Digital^NinjaWTF 19:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not any more it doesn't - please make sure you clear your cache or view the image at full size again. Mfield (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my! That is infinitely better! Whoever improved that picture by way of Photoshop magic I humbly tip my hat to a better de-mangling picture extraordinaire than I. Well played, Sir. Digital^NinjaWTF 19:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Mfield (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The edited version looks a bit better at small size, but still looks strange when enlarged. Maybe you should try looking at it on different monitors, the drool is still there. --Jleon (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt that's an issue. Anyone compelled to click on the picture to get up close and personal with Obama surely won't be construed as having issues with bodily fluid. Digital^NinjaWTF 19:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Does it matter? Whatever it is now, won't it be changed to a more official, government-released photo, as we see on the past presidents? A quick look at the last 4 show that they are sourced to http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ or variations thereof. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Denying the natural evolution of this BLP is utterly absurd. How else will greatness bestow itself in Wikiform without countless hours spent debating minuscule trivia. The best thing about a community of volunteers is that they're...volunteers ;-D Digital^NinjaWTF 19:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, if that vote here becomes another silly problem just let's keep it the way it is till an official updated Image is available. I absolutely don't want to see another MB-thread discussing such an easy simple issue again!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather wait until Inauguration Day. Then we can add his Presidential portrait. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, ya's may aswell give up on Image #3. Obama is planning to resign from the Senate on Sunday (Nov 16). It wouldn't look good to have him infront of the US Capitol, after his Inauguration in January 2009 - due to checks & balances in the US government. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image 1 is my vote.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image 1 This is clearly the superior image, a close up of the individual in question. Image 2 looks goofy.F33bs (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

References not needed in lead (and should be moved occasionally at bottom of page)

Somehow we accumulated an absurd number of references in the lead, where WP:MOS indicates that NONE should be used, except in exception circumstances (e.g. for genuinely disputed facts). Much of this accreted around the "is African American" matter that has had so many books written about it on this talk page. But also some other stuff like the fact he is President-elect.

All of those non-contentious facts should be (and are) cited with excellent detail in the article body. We are not inventing any of them or engaging in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Stylistically, however, the lead should be clean, and defer to the body for such citation.

I've clipped out the lead citations, and stick them below. If anything is genuinely uncited in the body that needs to be (and that was in the lead), we can and should use the relevant links at appropriate locations in the body text. LotLE×talk 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• FACTBOX: Barack Obama, Democratic President-elect (Reuters, November 5, 2008); World leaders hail Obama triumph (BBC News, November 5, 2008); Obama's victory caps struggles of previous generations (CNN, November 5, 2008)
• The President-elect can be yielded on election day, but the official Electoral College vote is not until early December."Backgrounder: U.S. presidential elections". Xinhua News Agency. November 5, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-06.
• "Barack Obama wins presidential election". CNN. Retrieved 2008-11-05.
• "Obama: 'This is your victory'". CNN. 2008-11-05. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
• Hunt, Terence (2008-11-08). "Obama turns to building a presidency". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
• Johnson, Alex (2008-11-05). "Barack Obama elected 44th president". MSNBC. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
• Nagourney, Adam (2008-11-04). "Obama Elected President as Racial Barrier Falls". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-11-12. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• McAuliff, Michael (2008-11-05). "Barack Obama is our first black President after an inspirational race". New York Daily News. Retrieved 2008-11-12. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "Barack Obama becomes first black US president". The Daily Telegraph. 2008-11-05. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
• 55% of White Americans classify Obama as biracial when they are told that he has a white mother, while 66% of African Americans consider him black. ("Williams/Zogby Poll: Americans' Attitudes Changing Towards Multiracial Candidates". BBSNews.com. 2006-12-22. Retrieved 2007-09-23.) Obama describes himself as "black" or "African American", using both terms interchangeably ("Transcript excerpt: Senator Barack Obama on Sixty Minutes". CBS News. 2007-02-11. Retrieved 2008-11-10.)
• Butterfield, Fox (1990). "First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review'". NY Times. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

Obama's Birth Records have been SEALED

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Obama's Birth Records have been SEALED. Thus this article stating that he was born in the U.S. is SPECULATION, NOT FACT, and should be indentified as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisbeatnik (talk • contribs) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you a source for that? GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Debunked urban myth. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If there were anything to this myth, the GOP and Rush Limbaugh would have been all over it. It's nada. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that some people are never going to accept the fact that he won the election. He won it fair and square, everyone needs to just move on and forget about all those ridiculous rumors. Like Bugs said, if there were anything to it whatsoever the GOP would have been all over it. Landon1980 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In contrast, it's all over (presumptively, at least). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ironically, the above is now sealed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It would appear so, too funny. Landon1980 (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Consistency about Columbia College, not Columbia University

Columbia University has many undergraduate colleges. By far the most prestigious one, Columbia College, is the one from which Obama graduated. It is confusing to list his alma mater as Columbia University, since that could include the far lesser-ranked women's school, engineering school, or a couple others. Also, for the sake of consistency and parallelism, it should be referred to the same way his school at Harvard is referred to. So, either he should be listed as an alumnus of Columbia College and Harvard Law School, or as an alumnus of Columbia University and Harvard University. I edited it the former, since it is more specific and informative. However, the only thing I feel strongly about is that it MUST be consistent.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that Columbia College is the name of at least eight distinct schools (see the DAB page). The name of the school Obama graduated from is Columbia College of Columbia University. That doesn't roll off the tongue as well (nor fit as easily in an infobox). I'm not sure what the best approach is, but I see that the answer is not immediately obvious. LotLE×talk 02:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Columbia University is all that is needed.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Columbia College is the generally used term for alums.LedRush (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Then just put it as [[Columbia College of Columbia University|Columbia University]] ? Formatting fits, and it points to the right place. Tarc (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"References" not cited in article

The References section in this article had been used for full citations for books (listed in alphabetical order by author name, then by date published) cited by shortened footnotes in the Notes section:

• Mendell, David (2007). Obama: From Promise to Power. Amistad/HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-085820-6.
• Obama, Barack (2004). Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Times Books. ISBN 1-4000-8277-3.
• Obama, Barack (2006). The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 0-307-23769-9.

On 5 November 2008, Franz weber added:

• 10:26, 5 November 2008 Franz weber (→References: References added (from Worldcat open access))
• 10:30, 5 November 2008 Franz weber (→References: more references added)
• 10:32, 5 November 2008 Franz weber (→References: one more reference added)
• 12:16, 5 November 2008 Franz weber (→References: The President's strategic concept, as developed in "Foreign Affairs" article added)

13 additional "references" to the References section that are not cited by shortened footnotes in the Notes section:

• Obama, Barack (1998) Public policy in the 21st century. Loyola University Chicago. Center for Instructional Design.; VHS Video
• Obama, Barack (2005) EBONY'S 60th Anniversary - The Political Movement In Black America. Chicago, Johnson Pub. Co., etc., Ebony. 61, no. 1, (2005): 116
• Obama, Barack (2005) Bound to the Word - Guardians of truth and knowledge, librarians must be thanked for their role as champions of privacy, literacy, independent thinking, and, most of all, reading. American libraries. 36, no. 7, (2005): 48, Chicago, American Library Association.
• Obama, Barack (2006) It takes a nation : how strangers became family in the wake of Hurricane Katrina : the story of MoveOn.org Civic Action's HurricaneHousing.org by Laura Dawn; Barack Obama; San Rafael, CA : Earth Aware, ISBN: 1932771867 9781932771862
• Obama, Barack (2006) Lobbying reform : congressional ethics in the wake of scandal : does the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act provide for sufficient reforms? by Trent Lott; Barack Obama; Congressional Digest Corporation.; et al, Bethesda, MD : Congressional Digest Corp., OCLC: 84912539
• Obama, Barack (2007) Barack Obama in his own words Ed. Lisa Rogak, New York: Carroll & Graf, 2007. ISBN: 9780786720576 0786720573
• Obama, Barack (2008, contr.) in Health care by David M Haugen; Detroit : Greenhaven Press/Gale; ISBN: 9780737740066; 073774006X; 9780737740073; 0737740078
• Obama, Barack (2008) Affordable Health Care for All Americans: The Obama-Biden Plan 13. Affordable Health Care for All Americans: The Obama-Biden Plan JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 300, no. 16, (2008): 1927, Chicago : American Medical Association, 1960-
• Obama, Barack (2008) An American story : the speeches of Barack Obama : a primer by Barack Obama and David Olive; Toronto: ECW Press, ISBN: 9781550228649; 1550228641
• Obama, Barack (2008) Change we can believe in : Barack Obama's plan to renew America's promise, New York : Three Rivers Press, ISBN: 9780307460455 : 0307460452 : 9780739383223 0739383221
• Obama, Barack (2008) Barack Obama's speech on race : "A more perfect union." BN Publishing, ISBN: 9650060448 9789650060442
• Obama, Barack (2008) An analysis of the Obama health care proposal by John Holahan; Linda Blumberg; Barack Obama; Health Policy Center (Urban Institute, Washington), D.C. : Urban Institute Health Policy Center, OCLC: 262633852
• Obama, Barack (2008) Renewing American leadership Foreign Affairs, New York/N.Y.(0015-7120), 86 (Juli-August 2007) 4 S. 2-16 Ill.

I have removed from the References section these 13 "references" that are not cited in the article.
Newross (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of slashing-and-burning, you could have moved them to a section called "Further reading". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I don't see the point of having a references section, the two works of Obama are already in Written Works, others may be moved there or in further reading. Mendell's book could be moved in the Notes section. This latter one could be renamed to Notes and References. Also, we could move the nota bene there. That would reduce the size a bit. Cenarium ^Talk 15:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate resignation

Obama resigned from the senate officially last week so it should be changed that it says he is still the senator. I do not know the exact date of his resignation, but I'm sure it can be found somewhere on the web or otherwise. 68.228.154.57 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's resignation is effective tomorrow, so it will be updated tomorrow. --GoodDamon 16:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Please do not hide content within this page. It not only disables parts of the content list but make it impossible to navigate the page using search (which is what I presume we all do). I am more than happy to see the AA section archived myself but as long as it is both hidden and being actively edited it is unacceptable to hide it., for instance for vandalism removal or responding to comments. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Full name, where is it?

"Dr. Barack Hussein Obama II". AFAIR it's not optional to carry the doctor degree in your full name.