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)
22. Wow, some folks know how to turn a mountain into a molehill. He calls himself African American so why can't we? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
23. Lots of people with one White and one Black parent are referred to and refer to themselves as "African American": see for instance P. B. S. Pinchback, Booker T. Washington and Halle Berry. Our treatment of Obama should be no different: he calls himself "African American", most reliable sources do, and we amply detail the specifics of his ancestry right after the lead. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 02:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The FACT that he is half caucasian and half black is not debatable. This is not a popularity contest. If the majority of people in America believe that Christianity is real, it doesn't make it so. He is FACTUALLY half white and half black. If you guys are so hung up on what the "media" calls him, then just have two sentences. One stating that he is really half white and half black, and then the next sentence asserting that most in the media refer to him as black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaway (talk • contribs) 04:20, 19 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)

In everyday conversation most people use the words "black" and "white." However, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be written in the same sloppy language we use in casual conversation. It is supposed to be written professionally. To me, "African American" and "Caucasian" sound much more professional. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't sound professional at all. Black people don't only come from Africa. Black people don't only live in America. The term doesn't have anything to do with race. Technically a white South African who immigrates to America could be called and "African-American" Nar Matteru (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Multi-racial

1. I know they call him African American, but none of his parents are American, he had an African father and a white mother. Another note is that his grandfather on his mother's side is part Irish. He was born in America, went to a school in Indonesia and Harvard. Think about it. He's been everywhere, and is family is pretty multicultural. This is just what I've heard so if I am wrong, I can understand. 114.76.216.155 (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"None of his parents are American?" What's that supposed to mean? And how many parents do you think he has? Most of us have just 2. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Other/some combination of various terms (please explain)

1. Senator Barack Obama is a bi-racial man. He looks black, but is half white and half black. Most black people aren't african-american because they have no african ancestory for several generations; they are simply american, or black. Obama is an exception because he has one american parent, and one african parent; so, he can be considered an african-american. Don't get me wrong though, this isn't because african-american is the politically correct way to say "black", since he isn't black, only half black.DuelX102 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
2. 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)
3. 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).
4. 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)
5. 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)

Oppose per Grsz11's argument. Someone with, for example, an Irish-American mother and an Italian-American father is both Irish-American and Italian-American, and can be described as either, or both; the same would apply to Obama: the fact that he has both European and African ancestry doesn't negate his being African-American. Readers would wonder why Wikipedia is using a pedantic circumlocution. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 16:43, 17 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)

He is not "half African American and half white"! His father was African, not African-American. His mother was American, and not at all African. That makes his African-American both in the pedantic and literal sense, and also in the sense in which the phrase is usually used in the United States.Manormadman (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

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)

You can't seem to understand that Obama did not have one African-American parent -- he had one AFRICAN parent, and one (white) American. Neither of his parents was African-American. Manormadman (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

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)

|}

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)

[6] 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)

Not 1876, 2000 was the last time the candidate with the popular vote lost the election. Landon1980 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking popular vote, I'm talking the electoral college voting getting screwed up. There was no electoral college issue in 2000 as such, just the question of which way Florida was to go, i.e. the popular vote within Florida. The fact that Bush lost the popular vote overall does not enter into it, constitutionally. Notice that the Florida electors did not suddenly switch to Al Gore in protest. No way, nohow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There weren't any "faithless electors" affecting the result in 1876 either. What there were was two sides each claiming the same 20 electors and a Commission settled the dispute, admittedly on party lines. And no-one knows for sure who the rightful winner was - I've even read some historians asserting that one candidate would have won a fair vote and the other a fair count. But all electors were on the basis of the relevant state popular votes. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:17, 17 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)

They're not made public 'til the Jan 6th. I just thought after Dec 15th, nobody would have trouble declaring Obama & Biden prez-elect & vice prez-elect (as we all asumingly trust the Electors). GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, until the 6th and/or until the electoral votes are made public, there is just as much "doubt" as there is today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• To end this discussion, here is the secret which only a view chosen ones knew: I will become the next "Magnificent clean-keeping President of the United States of America". Now it's out so go and feed the hungry media  :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• So it shall be written; so it shall be done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Joking aside please note: Lulu of the Lotus Eaters originally moved the compromise footnote to Barack_Obama#President-elect_of_the_United_States and here is the note. I agree with him. Please do not keep reverting to put it in the lead. Per WP:MOS there should be no notes in the lead. This is a featured article. Let's observe a few rules here and there. Dr.K. (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New vote on lead image

• 
  Image 1
• 
  Image 2

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)

• I'd rather wait until after the Inauguration and then we'll have a whole plethora of presidential images to pick from. Brothejr (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Since the voting is clearly in favor of Image 1, I will change it to that for now. --Jleon (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Vote? !voting is evil, and is not the way in which we evaluate consensus. This is just silly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Well at least the vote has done a good job of proving that the majority of people have no idea what makes a good image. Mfield (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Image 2 edited Nothing has changed since the previous voting. Also I don't see where the assertion is based that there is a clear consensus for image 1. Most people don't even know that there is yet another vote so soon after the last one. This is not how voting is supposed to happen. Dr.K. (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That is why voting is evil. I would call it also, silly, ridiculous, childish, and nonsensical. Photo 2 (edited or not) is superior to photo 1 by all measures. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Voting is evil and all that, but this isn't a case where consensus makes the same sense. We simply are going to use one image or another, it's not a question on the merits of using an image in the infobox. The strong majority of voters like #1, and it's also the image that was the consensus image for many months until someone changed it a week or two ago. It seems like a no-brainer that we should just use #1 for now. Maybe if the next White House issue a new official image we'll use that then. LotLE×talk 04:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Here is the other vote result: Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_41#Consensus_on_Image. Clearly in favour of image 2. Dr.K. (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And even this vote round is only 6-5 in favour of 1, including Jossi's non vote. That's not a strong majority. That's an impasse. Given the previous vote Image 2 remains. Dr.K. (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image 1 --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Images 2 and 3 are exactly the same. The MD5 hashes for both are 4ad3b0b87d7f3d8b0525aa0b53f079db. Xclamation point 05:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

They weren't always, the edited version replaced the original as an obvious improvement - see the version history. I have removed the duplicate from above as it changes nothing, we are only voting on 1 vs 2. Mfield (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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.

Seal

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)

There is a court case questioning his birth place. Wikipedia does mention it in the article about Phillip_J._Berg. If there is a lawsuit that questions Obama's place of birth, why is it against Wikipedia's rules to bring it up in his biography? Is it taboo to mention that there is a legal allegation of his place of birth being Kenya and not Hawaii? --rafvrab (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried FAQ at the top of the page? Question #5 to be exact. Dr.K. (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Court case is not exactly an accurate term. No jury or judge will agree to hear it, the whole thing is just a sorry attempt to nullify his presidency by a sore loser. To mention it here would be to give it credence it doesn't deserve. L'Aquatique[talk] 08:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Grandmother and sister have testified that Obama was born in Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.34 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, just the kind of unsourced, anonymous comment I immediately trust whenever and wherever they appear on the internet! It's true, because 153.2.246.34 says it's true. --GoodDamon 18:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wait until DEC 1st when Obongo is forced to answer the writ that is before the U.S. supreme court. 71.57.146.112 (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, do us all a favor and come back when that happens. Dayewalker (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Obongo? WTF is "Obongo"...? Lestatdelc (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought Obongo was his half-brother or something... L'Aquatique[talk] 06:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh nope Lestatdelc (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ahhh yes. According to the article Malik Obama is also known as Abongo- close enough! However, I don't think that's who the person was talking about. I think 71.57.146.112 just doesn't know how to spell... L'Aquatique[talk] 06:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Passport records of Obama's mom and dad would have shown a US to Kenyan passage in 1961 - if there was such a record it would have come out by now. To get back into the US from Kenya, the new baby's entry would have been well documented and subsequently, with all the travel the boy-Obama did between Indonesia and the US during the 1960s and 1970s his birth must have been verified several times for him to get(and maintain) a US passport. Seriously. Wake up and smell the coffee. VictorC (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the Supreme Court Case was denied. Grab a clue. 06:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

jftr, the Hawaii Department of Health had a news release on this October 31, 2008: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf Now I realize this won't stop any wingnut conspiracy theorists, but obviously they're as fed up as the rest of us with these ridiculous, totally unfounded claims. Is there really nothing useful these people can find to do with their apparently copious (possibly unlimited) amounts of spare time?

STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

Flatterworld (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A vet

Seriously, ya think someone would have vetted this guy before we elected him President of the United States of America, huh? --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Woof. If Limbaugh doesn't think it matters, then it doesn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

All hail the Rushinator! --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:47, 19 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)

This just seems to be getting far too involved with minutiae. 1) Are colleges within a university separate, independent entities? Forgive the crude conceptualization, but regardless of whatever stuff comes out any of your orifices, it still came out of you. I'll bet his tuition checks were written out to "Columbia University", not "Columbia College of Columbia University". 2) For the case of why Harvard Law School is spelled out instead of just Harvard University ... well, it is a professional degree school. It doesn't churn out a variety of majors or career fields, it produces lawyers, period. Just like the medical school, which would naturally be listed as Harvard Medical School. 3) Having the info box show "Columbia University", but the article text call out the specific college he was enrolled in, seems to strike a fair balance between format consistency and factual accuracy. My two-cents worth ... Fredmdbud (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have the diploma over my computer desk which was issued to me when I completed my bachelors program at Columbia College, a few years before Obama. It was issued by the trustees of Columbia University. There are a few schools in the Columbia University family which do issue their own degrees, but the College is not one of them. Even Barnard College doesn't issue its own degrees, even though it actually has its own Board of Trustees (unlike Columbia College.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Full name, where is it?

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

"Dr. Barack Hussein Obama II". AFAIR it's not optional to carry the doctor degree in your full name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.112.69 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Doctor" is a title, not a name. Consider how Benjamin Spock or Joyce Brothers have been handled, for example. Or even Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the IP editor meant by "not optional," either. I certainly don't know anyone with a doctorate who always signs his name "Dr. So-and-so." --GoodDamon 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Doctor" is an academic degree which will be added to your personal documents (passport, id-card, etc) upon receiving. It's like "Sir" when your a knight (Sir Elton John for example). When calling/naming that person, the "doctor" is not optional! It can be offered to people to avoid the "Doctor", but per default you must use the title (by law). In some countries it is at the level of an insult to leave out the title on purpose (you can go to court for that). "Benjamin McLane Spock" is no doctor, "Joyce Brothers" is.

Waitaminnit. Dr Spock was "no doctor"? What on earth? I think you just discredited yourself and all your claims right there. -- Zsero (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What i found was, that he finished yale with a bachelor degree. Which university allowed him the "doctor" title? Show me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.103.14 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Spock attended medical school at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, where he graduated first in his class in 1929. He did residency training in pediatrics at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University in Manhattan and then in psychiatry at Cornell's Payne Whitney Psychiatric Clinic.. Though this is off-topic. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your source for this claim? As far as I know, titles are irrelevant to legal documents, and calling someone "Dr." or "Sir" is a matter of context. You don't see "Sir" on their record jackets, do you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Obama could enforce the usage if he would like too (legaly). But obviously he hasn't. However, on the one side it is a matter of respect to name a person with it's academic title and it shows a lack of respect if you leave it out. On the other hand, it has become common practice in wikipedia to leave the "Dr." out in the naming. There is a rule page for that, could somebody help me locating? Personally i would like to see the title there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.112.69 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Dammit Jim; I'm a future US President, not a Doctor. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) Ok, acadmic titles will be left out. There is a wikipedia policy about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.112.69 (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides, most lawyers have J.D. degrees, but very few use the "Dr." honorific. There's no evidence that Obama does. Some of the more pompous lawyers call themselves "Esq.", but I see no evidence of Obams using that title these days either. PhGustaf (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I already pointed out there is a policy, which clears up the point regarding the article. In day to day life, it is not up to *you* to decide if to skip the "Dr."! Dr. Kohl (16 years chancelor of germany) has called it an intimacy which he does not allow as an interviewer called him "Mr. Kohl", because one puts himself on the same level as the doctor by avoiding his title. Very impolite and display of lack of respect and own education. But let's settle the point here with the already mentioned policy 91.33.103.14 (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In everyday life it is not acceptable to call someone with a JD a "doctor". Technically, you have a doctoral degree, and someone could use it, but I've never seen or heard of it before.LedRush (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, normally you wouldn't refer to "Dr. Barack Obama" when listing the full name, you would say "Barack Obama, JD", just as you would append "PhD" or "MD" or "ThD" or whatever. You might call him "Dr. Obama", but that would be unusual usage for the law profession, as you say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, you raised an issue and you discovered it's not an issue after all. So this section could be marked "resolved", as there is nothing to do. As far as being "optional" in general, there is no American law requiring anyone to call anyone by their title. Of course, if they want to get an interview, maybe they should. But that's politeness, not law. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Any JD who introduced himself as "Dr such-and-such" would be a laughing-stock. And one who insisted on being addressed as "Dr" would quickly find himself being called much less polite terms. -- Zsero (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the "resolved" banner, since there is no issue here. The IP address raised what he thought was an issue and which he discovered is not an issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So a doctor title is a laughing matter for you? Instead the americans call persons "Dr." which never reached the level of a doctor (as Benjamin McLane Spock). That's what i call anti-education :D In germany, you'd go to jail for that (calling oneself a doctor illegaly) 91.33.103.14 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, in america we have free speech and aren't arested for silly things we say. Especially when no one calls lawyers "doctors". That's just silly.LedRush (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong about it being illegal to pretend to have a qualification you don't, or from dubious sources (e.g. purchased from a diploma mill). The European culture of title integrity is far stronger, particularly in traditionally hierarchical societies like Germany where having a doctorate brings many social benefits (just read any diploma mill statement about deference and free upgrades). Hence the demand that only those who have doctorates are called doctor. I do admit the German law is perhaps over rigid, but that's a case for clear international accreditation. [7] Timrollpickering (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

He's talking about lawyers. They don't go by "doctor". And since when was Spock not a doctor? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have replaced every instance of the phrase "Mr Obama" in the article with the phrase "Dr Obama". I hope this settles the issue once and for all. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:03, 19 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.

Related to Brad Pitt, Madonna, and Others

This has been removed twice already by other editors who accused this comment of not being worthy of this Discussion page. But I think that it is worthy of the article itself, that is why I am posting it here. I believe that these close blood connections are not only of public interest but are important as they show a strong linkage of bloodline to success and political standing. If anyone disagrees, that is fine with me. I would just like to present this topic for consideration.

As you may or may not know, it has recently come out in several mainstream sources that a professional genealogy organization has traced many key political and famous personalities to Obama. These aren't distant cousins, like 111th or 214th cousins. They are 5th and 9th cousins, etc. The list includes several other American presidents, of these George Bush, and celebrities such as Brad Pitt, Madonna and Marilyn Munroe, and from his mother's side Celine Deon and Alanis Morissette. And there are more still.

Sources:

• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23797072/
• http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/860708,genes032508.article
• http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/wireStory?id=4521690

Neurolanis (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

5th or 9th cousins is pretty distant. I'm related to a couple of Presidents also. Big deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Related how?

Remember, there is a long list of persons related to Obama. Perhaps it's still unimportant, but I just want to make that clear.Neurolanis (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My own relations are in the 5th-to-9th cousin range, which shows how unimportant it is. In fact, your premise smacks of original research. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

These extraordinarily distant relations are correspondingly uninteresting to a general encyclopedia article. I'd say that, as a rule, even a 2nd cousin would be extremely unlikely to be of any relevance to such an article, and 5th or 9th doesn't even pass the laugh test. Maybe there could be an article on the distant genealogy, but it's not this one. LotLE×talk 22:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There are exceptional cases, like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt being 5th cousins. That's a little different, though, in that they were both Presidents. The Roosevelt 5th cousin who made his name in a minstrel show, or whatever, might not be such an interesting link. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, from my perspctive I'm looking at it like this: a marriage, with offspring. The offspring have their offspring, and this continues several more times. And down these bloodlines are several American presidents, other major political personalities, as well as several of the most famous people in Hollywood and the music industry. To me that's pretty remarkable. Neurolanis (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to you, and maybe to me - hence, "original research". If you can find a reliable source that not only makes that connection, but regards it as significant, then you might have something, although it's still just someone's opinion. It's the old "everyone's related to everyone" theory. Direct descendancy is much more notable, e.g. Dubya being descended from his father, of course, and also related to President Pierce on his mother's side. Or E.R. II being directly descended from William of Normandy, although of course that's a requirement for the job. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a direct descendant of William III of England. I'm a distant cousin of several famous people, including scientists and actors. And this means absolutely diddly. We're all distant relations to each other, and this whole thing smacks of really, incredibly fringe theories about bloodlines. So Obama might be distantly related to some celebrities. He's also distantly related to absolute nobodies, closely related to other absolute nobodies, and if you go back far enough, probably related to every man, woman, and child on the planet. As am I. As are you. As is everyone who reads this page. This isn't weighty biography material, it's Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. --GoodDamon 23:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No per WP:TRIVIA and WP:UNDUE. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To Baseball Bugs: So you're saying you'd only agree with posting this on the article if someone on a mainstream source states that they find it important..?

To GoodDamon: Interesting. What degree of relation though? 5th, 7th and 9th cousin? "Distant" can mean different things.

To Evb-wiki: My proposal was a sub-section on this material, not a listing off of facts. If you refer to each blood relation, like a table, I have seen many, many of those on Wikipedia.

Seems no one here agrees with my view, but that's fine. Neurolanis (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I would agree with posting it, but citing a mainstream source that claims some importance about it would be a minimum requirement. Wikipedia bios often have close relatives or direct ancestors or decendants listed if they're notable. But it's unlikely you'll find many instances of 5th-to-9th cousins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Neurolanis, do you know your 3rd cousins? Or 4th? Have they had any bearing whatsoever on your life? At the fifth cousin level, are you even aware of who they are? What I'm saying is that there is no relationship. There's trivial shared genetic lineage. That's it. Personally, I know my direct cousins reasonably well, my 2nd cousins hardly at all, and would need to do genealogical research to identify any 3rd cousins out there, which would include the descendants of any one of my 16 great-great grandparents. I'm just not seeing any notability here. --GoodDamon 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

TR and FDR were 5th cousins, but they were both Presidents, so that makes for a good exception to the rule. Eleanor was TR's niece. Other non-lineal relationships are sometimes listed, such as Al Gore and Gore Vidal, although the Thomas Gore article disputes it (even though Vidal seems to believe that he is in fact related to Al Gore). However, all these folks have been in the politics business, which adds a layer of notability to their coincidental genetic relationship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm related to Obama in about six degrees of consanguinity. I'm also related to Georgia O'Keefe, Martin Van Buren and The Wright Brothers. Do I get an article? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you do something notable on your own. Like winning the lottery and donating it all to the Sarah Palin Wardrobe relief fund. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note: the article List of notable distant cousins of Barack Obama

has a Articles for Deletion discussion going on here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable distant cousins of Barack Obama.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Footnote in lead

We just had a very long discussion in which consensus was to add a footnote to the lead. However, it was deleted with all other citations because of citation to wikipedia style. However, the lead section manual has the following to say:

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.

To me, this is not a strong case for taking out all footnotes. However, I am here to ask about only one. The one regarding the footnote to president-elect described above. The footnote reads:

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.

This is a complex subject and the short explanation is quite useful. We added it through a very long and hard discussion which ended in a rare consensus for this topic. Therefore, according to WP:MOS, the footnote is appropriate.

Anyway, I started this section to get some thoughts and see if consensus has changed now that we are mixing two subjects in one.LedRush (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The footnote that I took out was absolutely unnecessary for the lead. But even beyond being unnecessary, it was a contentious and factually false bit of original research and synthesis. The article on president elect is perfectly fine as a place for more legalistic details, in fact it is a place where we need not be so painfully wrong as was the footnote.

In any case, there was certainly no consensus for adding this needless disruption. Three or four highly vocal editors got it in their craw that "prez elect" was a suspect term (despite being used in the overwhelming preponderance of sources), while the vast majority opined that the concern was a bit silly. Sort of like the similar objections to AA, or the recurring fringe theories about his birthplace, or university transcripts, or whatever. LotLE×talk 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was clear above, so please don't deny that. Also, would you please explain why you think the statement is factually incorrect? Also, please try and remain civil...your post above is certainly not helpful to constructive discussion.LedRush (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to worry. As per my comment in another section above, the compromise footnote moved to Barack_Obama#President-elect_of_the_United_States and here is the note. It just changed places due to wp:mos concerns. Dr.K. (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that during our discussion I was under the impression that we were discussing the note itself and not its location. So when I agreed after much debate to include it I was not aware that it was necessarily supposed to go to the lead. Even though I did insert it in the lead originally, when LotLE moved it further down I didn't mind because I remembered best practices as described in wp:mos, especially in the case of featured articles such as this one. Dr.K. (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care where the note is, but I was under the impression we were to put it in the lead. I think the note being in the article is a good idea, but I'll not lose any sleep over it. By the way, Lu lu, I don't recall you participating in the discussion, yet you take it upon yourself to remove the footnote and deem it "false original research." I guess since we are all "highly vocal" "silly" and "have it in our craw" it doesn't matter what we say. You seem to think your opinion alone is more important than several others. You claimed the vast majority of editors claimed the idea was silly, you and I clearly have a different perception of what a "vast majority" is. I don't care that you moved the note, but you could have at least discussed it. Landon1980 (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand let me reiterate that I don't think the discussion was about the location of the note. I strongly believe that it was about including it at all. So what I agreed to was a compromise to add it to the article. When LotLE moved it I remembered that in Featured articles it is best not to have citations in the lead section. So I agreed with his edit. In fact I recall thinking I should have been more careful myself. Now LotLE expressed his opinion. He disagrees with the note. Fine. So do I. But we both compromised. LotLE has deferrred to this consensus by allowing the note to stay albeit in a new location. The note is still highly visible. Its font size is larger than the regular references. So why complain. Do I like it? Not really. I am uncomfortable with NB notes because they don't cite external sources. They are more like editor's notes and that has a homemade feel to it. It's after all a made in Wikipedia source informing a Wikipedia article. It has an almost incestuous feel to it. Other issues such as wp:undue arise given the vast preponderance of sources asserting the Prez-elect usage etc. But in the spirit of compromise and in the spirit of "I had enough debating ad nauseam a lowly, soon-to-expire, footnote" I hope this discussion reaches a swift conclusion. Dr.K. (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care that Lu Lu moved the note, like I said before I don't have any strong feelings regarding whether the footnote is even in the article. You are the one that put it in the lead to start with. If the footnote really bothers you this bad remove it; I doubt anyone would object. What I care about is Lu Lu didn't have the common courtesy to come here and say he moved it, or why. When he did come here and explain he wasn't exactly respectful, there was no need to be so insulting. We spent a good deal of time discussing the footnote (a discussion which he avoided). Calling it a "needless disruption," saying the idea was "silly" and calling us "highly vocal" was all unnecessary." The only thing I "have in my craw" is that I'd like to be respected. Towards the end of the discussion everyone involved agreed on adding the footnote, yet he let on like there was no consensus. All of those relate to the contributor, not content. There seems to be a lot of this type of behavior on this talk page. It is fine to disagree with someone, but you could do so respectfully. Landon1980 (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Landon for the clarification. I agree that some comments were expressed with some amount of rhetorical flair. This is an article about a politician. Politics is a field full of rhetoric. Sometimes it spills over to the talk page. However I do agree that it should be used with caution especially if it makes other users uncomfortable. As far as the citation, I will not remove it. When I agree to something, rightly or wrongly, warts and all, I stick by it. Dr.K. (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh goodness, we've digressed to argueing about what are arguments were about. Oh WikiLordy, now we're in trouble! Grsz^{11 →Review!} 07:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In math it's called a second order perturbation. Good observation. Hope we don't reach nth order soon. Dr.K. (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

←My understanding also was that the discussion was about whether to include the note at all, not where it would go,and there was not unanimous agreement that it be included at all. I still think there should be no note - the wikilink for President-elect is more than sufficient, and reason for this whole matter is suspect - as evidenced by the musings above about faithless electors. This is not 2000 - McCain not only didn't win the popular vote, he didn't even come close. The election will be certified, Obama will be inaugurated on Jan 20, and everyone knows that. Meanwhile he is considered the President-elect in all sources, and is so described in dozens of articles here - and the wikilink handles the technicality. The note certainly does not belong in the lead, and I would remove it altogether. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A number of editors disputed what "President-elect" means, so it seemed reasonable to assume that many casual readers might have the same question; so it seemed reasonable, as a courtesy to the readers, to give a short footnoted explanation, rather than trying to make them shlog through the entire spinoff article on "President-elect". The needs of the readers should come first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And in 2000, the issue was not the electoral college or the overall popular vote, it was the popular vote in Florida, and hence the question of which way the Florida electoral vote would go. The fact that Gore won the overall popular vote was a matter of some discussion, but the founding fathers gave extra weight to the smaller states for a specific reason - to keep the populous states from dominating every election. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No the founding fathers intended to have George Washington as the first President and after that to leave it to the deliberations of virtuous men - state legislatures selecting the electors, the electors discussing amongst themselves (hence the need for each state to have more than one), and the (outgoing) House of Reps (with each state delegation casting only one vote) choosing from the top five nominees unless one had overwhelming support. They didn't envisage popular vote elections at all. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

But they did envisage the big states dominating, hence the "Great Compromise" establishing two houses of Congress, and also the electoral voting process, both features giving the smaller states the chance to form a coalition and maybe keep the bigger states from deciding the Presidency every time. This point was brought home to me in 2000, when I said something to a native of my smaller state about direct popular vote. Their answer was, "We can't do that, or the candidates would never come here!" The electoral system forces the candidates to spread out and not just focus on the big states. It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah so that's why the last French presidential election (which is a nation-wide direct vote) got a turnout of about 20% more than this US one (and in both rounds). And I doubt Sarkozy and/or Royal went to every department (France has its own colour divide although it's not as rigid as the US).

It's not good for any democratic country if the election winds up being decided in only a few parts of the country, with vast swathes written off as hopeless by one side or the other. That's a recipe for alienation, resentment and a divided society. But this is all drifting seriously off topic. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That alienation was not the intent, but it is the theory behind the electoral college. Go to Limbaugh's page and see the map showing all the districts that went for Obama vs. McCain. He's trying to make a bogus argument that the country is "mostly conservative". But the distribution is still interesting, as it shows the dichotomy between urban and rural. And it's not off-topic, as it has to do with allowing the reader to understand. The electoral college is mystifying to many, but it was done for good reasons. Which is why I think a quick note on the term is useful in this article, a one-line "summary"; and if the reader wants to find out more, he can wade into the linked article. And you're right that American voter turnout is still dismal, even though this was one of the best. Although my thought is, if they don't care enough to vote, maybe they ought not be voting anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate resignation continued

Obama has resigned from the Senate effective Sunday. Infoboxes etc need to be updated. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.63.3 (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait until his resignation is announced. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a done deal: [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

President-Elect on YouTube

Just yesterday, Barack Obama posted his first video in his YouTube Channel "ChangeDotGov". Although the channel URL is mentioned in the "News Media" section of the article, I thought it would be a good idea for people who are interested and want to find out more about Barack Obama to add this piece of information under the section heading "President-elect of the United States." Personally, I don't seem to be able to do that though, because the article is semi-protected. Without further ado, I would like to suggest the following wording for the amendment and be glad to see someone with the appropriate rights add the information for me:

"Until further notice, Barack Obama will post a message regarding current events of national and international significance on YouTube every week. His first message was posted on November 15, 2008, and was mainly concerned with the struggling economy and employment market. His address on a mass medium resembles the approach of the Fireside chats by former President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt."

Cheers,

DrumheadV08 (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

For the full FDR effect, get a wallpaper with a crackling fire and a cathedral radio. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He really should caption his videos... L'Aquatique[talk] 23:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Legislation in the US Senate

In 2005 he alomg with most of the Senate voted in favor of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 which made it more diofficult for humans to declare chapter 7. They would be forced into chapter 14. The current bankruptcy code with its prohibition on Article I bankruptcy judges from cram down modification of loans secured by owner occupied primary residences -- commonly and incorrectly called mortgages because the mortgage is the security interest which an owner of property encumbers by pledging it as collateral for a loan. This is importanjt today because the financial crisis has as one of the major causes bad loans secured by these homes and the inability to work out these loans 17:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)LaidOff (talk)uses

Schedule to...

A new editor to this page has stuck this into the lead a couple times: "...scheduled to take office on January 20, 2009.". I find the tone quite unencyclopedic, and have changed it to something slightly less ugly. However, the fact itself really doesn't belong in the first sentence at all. Readers who do not know about the dates for presidential terms can very easily click on the links for president-elect, president, or whatever. It's quite possible that some readers, maybe especially those outside the USA, would assume that presidential terms started sooner than they do... which sort of amounts to "so what?!". Different nations have various laws about term-of-office, and the information is hardly any well-kept secret.

I don't want to 1RR on this article, given the probation and all. If someone else wants to take out the non-lead-material addition, I would welcome that. LotLE×talk 21:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• 1> Not that it really matters, but I am hardly a new editor, to this page or any other. 2> the links do NOT give easy access to that information. 3>If you prefer that wording, I have no particular objection, though I find your opinion on ugliness not decisive. As long as the concept is retained there until he does take office. It is not the date, but the delay that is important (& quite unusual internationally speaking) Your reply above of "so what?" should intensify everyone's concern about US-centrism 4>That date is certainly more important to lede than date he resigned Senate. --JimWae (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTc)

The start date of his new term is hardwired into the US Constitution, which specifies January 20th as the end of one Presidential term and the beginning of the other. The only way Obama could become President earlier is if Dick Cheney resigns the Vice Presidency, Obama gets confirmed by the Congress and George W. Bush then resigns the Presidency. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "scheduled to" was substituted for "will" on the grounds that wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And it's possible someone might want to know, although it's also in the infobox so maybe it's no big deal if it's not in the intro. Meanwhile, the above editor is not quite right with his scenario. The only way Obama could become President before noon on the 20th is if Cheney resigns or dies, and Bush appoints Obama to the post of Vice-President, and then Bush resigns or dies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• There's too much in the infoboxeS to expect anyone to find the info there. The lede should contain the most important info. I cannot see how the date he resigned the Senate could be more important than the date he will become president - and I am certain more readers (especially non-US ones) would want to be able to quickly find out when he will become president. The info ought to be restored to the lede, until he is no longer the president-elect. --JimWae (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• What kind of argument is it to say this info is unencyclopedic? If that were truly the case, it should not appear anywhere in the article at all--JimWae (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the topic of the recent Bush-Obama meeting was Bush asking Obama if he could start right away . . .Numskll (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

Obama is presumably an African name, although I think that there's a town called Obama in Japan. The Irish Moneygall O'Bama is fanciful. But Barack? Well, in the Book of Judges, 4 vi, there's a reference to one "Barak, son of Abinoam". Notwithstanding the minor spelling differnce, is this the origin of the President-elect's first name? Millbanks (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The article on Barack (given name) says that it is Arabic for "he who is blessed" or simply "blessed". Perhaps this information should be added to this article. LovesMacs (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Baraq (ברק), as in ben Avinoam, is with a Q, not a K. It means "lightning", and its Arabic cognate is Buraq. Barak, as in Obama, means "blessed", and is cognate to the Hebrew Baruch (ברוך). -- Zsero (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, are you replying to me, to Millbanks, or to both of us? I am confused. You're more qualified to comment on the etymology of Barack than me. LovesMacs (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that anyone cares or that i'm a philologist but... it IS from the semitic tongues, more closely from Arabic via Swahili (which has a lot of arabic borrowed words). It's not derived from lightning in either Hebrew or Arabic (though of course, sounds much the same to native english speaking ears.)Bali ultimate (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keyes files citizenship lawsuit against Obama

Shouldn't there be some mention of this on Wikipedia? (78.145.206.0 (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80931

From worldnetdaily? No. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources, if you're doubting whether he did file a lawsuit or not.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/alan-keyes-files-lawsuit-over-barack-obamas-eligibility-to-serve-as-president/

http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/16/alan-keyes-files-lawsuit-over-obama-eligibility/ (78.145.206.0 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

No, we don't cover obscure items, especially after they've already been discredited by various other lawsuits. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 00:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's on the Alan Keyes page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because it is a significant detail in the biography of Keyes. And that's a matter for the Talk:Alan Keyes anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I looked up "fringe" in the dictionary and Keyes' picture was there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Keyes was holding a grudge for losing the Senate race. Perhaps he should have challenged Obama's standing to run for that office :-). Actually, I think this merits little if any mention on Keyes' article either, but that's a different talk page. LotLE×talk 02:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have come up in the Illinois Senate race, because you don't have to be an Illinois native (obviously) to run for Senate, and probably not a native-born American either. Keyes is desperate for attention, I expect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Scjessey. Adding this to the article would be pretty WP:COATRACKy. However, if something develops add it then. I wouldn't keep my hopes up, seems Obama is coated in Polytetrafluoroethylene. Digital^NinjaWTF 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I would support mentioning something about this matter in the first footnote, but not in the main text. Something like "Alan Keyes and others have questioned Obama's birthplace." But, maybe it would be best to wait and see what the California court decides (things may get interesting if the teflon coating is not as thick as we presume).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not reported in any mainstream press, so this smells of conspiracy/fringe theory and has no place in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say is "smells of fringe theory"... I'd say it's more like: "From the outer reaches of Fringe, on a clear day, with a powerful telescope you can see this theory". LotLE×talk 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree that this does not merit inclusion. There have been several of these lawsuits, and they've all been thrown out of court. If by some quirk of fate or judicial whim this one is not thrown out like all the others, then it might merit inclusion in some Obama article, though not necessarily this one. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT we can't mention it here, because no reliable source has seriously questioned Obama's birth in Hawaii. However, if reliable sources cover this lawsuit there might be a case for including a mention of the lawsuit in the campaign article or presidential transition of Barack Obama or somewhere. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless that happens, I think it's currently relegated to the right family of articles. The existence of this lawsuit has less impact on Obama's life than it does on perceptions of Alan Keyes' sanity. --GoodDamon 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I should put air quotes around the word "sanity" in that previous sentence, by the way. --GoodDamon 16:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Written works section

• On 28 August 2008, following a proposal (Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 34#Books about Obama) by Noroton to add a list of "attack books" to this WP:BLP, Scjessey proposed (Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 34#Redo the books) to add a "Works" section with a list of works by Obama starting with six books found by searching Amazon.com (Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 34#Note about the list), which they did:
  • 22:27, 28 August 2008 Scjessey (Added "works" section - "books authored" will need to be cut, with relevant content worked into the body of the article)
• On 29 August, 2008, Kanodin added a Foreign Affairs essay by Obama that was already mentioned in the text of the article and cited in the "Notes" section:
  • 07:30, 29 August 2008 Kanodin (→Works: adding Obama's Foreign Affairs essay (copied from Notes section); I hope the "Works" list is not restricted to books, because the essay is a journal publication)
• On 25 October 2008, Tvoz retitled the "Works" section as "Written works":
  • 07:24, 25 October 2008 Tvoz m (→Written works: retitled)
    
    

I removed the "Written works" section because the entries listed in the section were redundant or unmerited, specifically:
These entries were redundant:

• Obama, Barack (1995). Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0307383415.
• Obama, Barack (October 17, 2006). The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Crown Publishing Group / Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0307237699.
  • both books are mentioned in the text of the article with a wikilink to their own articles and are already cited in the "References" section because they are both cited multiple times in the article text by shortened footnotes
• Obama, Barack (July-August 2007). "Renewing American Leadership". Foreign Affairs 86 (4).
  • This article is mentioned in the text of the article and is already cited in the "Notes" section

These entries were unmerited:

• Obama, Barack (March 27, 2007). Barack Obama in His Own Words. PublicAffairs. ISBN 0786720573.
  • This "in his own words" 166-page paperback book by Lisa Rogak consists of a selection by Rogak of brief quotes of Obama (ranging from one sentence to one paragraph) taken out-of-context from assorted sources; and is a "work" by Rogak, not a "work" by Obama.
• Obama, Barack (March 1, 2008). Barack Obama: What He Believes In – From His Own Works. Arc Manor. ISBN 1604501170.
  • This 463-page paperback book is a collection of the full text of four U.S. Senate Concurrent Resolutions, three U.S. Senate Resolutions, one U.S. Senate Joint Resolution, and fifty-five U.S. Senate Bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama during the first half (January 4, 2007 – December 19, 2007) of the 110th Session of the U.S. Congress, not a "work" by Obama
• Obama, Barack; McCain, John (June 13, 2008). Barack Obama vs. John McCain – Side by Side Senate Voting Record for Easy Comparison. Arc Manor. ISBN 1604502495.
  • This 223-page paperback book consists of a very, very long table of U.S. Senate Roll Call votes (366 in 2005, 279 in 2006, 442 in 2007, 140 in 2008) from January 6, 2005 – May 22, 2008 (such as can be found here: U.S. Senate Legislation & Records: Votes) with columns indicating whether McCain and Obama voted yea, nay, or did not vote; this book is not a "work" by Obama
• Obama, Barack (September 9, 2008). Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise, Foreword by Barack Obama. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0307460452.
  • This 273-page paperback book by Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign (Obama for America) consits of a 7-page foreword by Obama, a 182-page "Plan" (policy issues statements by the campaign such as found here: Policy Issues on barackobama.com, and transcripts of seven Obama presidential campaign speeches (as can also be found here: Barack Obama Speeches on barackobama.com); this book is essentially a print version of barackobama.com, not a "work" by Obama meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia biography article about Obama’s life
• National Urban League (April 17, 2007). The State of Black America 2007: Portrait of the Black Male, Foreword by Barack Obama. Beckham Publications Group. ISBN 0931761859.
  • This 300-page paperback book is a report by the National Urban League edited by Stephanie J. Jones on the socioeconomic condition of black males in the United States; it contains a 4-page foreword by Barack Obama. The book is only found in 65 libraries in the U.S. and there is no indication that its 4-page foreword by Obama merits inclusion in an encyclopedia biography article about Obama’s life
    • (just as there is no indication to merit the inclusion of the 2-page foreword by Barack Obama in Laura Dawn’s 2006 134-page paperback book It takes a nation: how strangers became family in the wake of Hurricane Katrina: the story of MoveOn.org Civic Action's HurricaneHousing.org ISBN 1932771867 - found in 190 U.S. libraries; nor the 2-page foreword by Barack Obama in the 2006 paperback edition of Karega Kofi Moyo's Real men cook: more than 100 easy recipes celebrating tradition and family ISBN 0743272641 - found in 44 U.S. libraries)
      

Newross (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree that we should not per WP:EL include general reference works on Obama, and as a weight/relevance/organization issue we shouldn't have a complete CV of everything he has written. Also that we shouldn't be redundant. There's a "Further Reading" section, a "Written works" section (there was), and a "Reference" section, all of which could be consolidated. As long as we have his major works listed here in some fashion. When you deleted it I think you removed mention of the awards, and that Obama received a grammy. That's significant and relevant enough for the amount of treatment it had so we should move that mention to wherever the book is mentioned. Wikidemon (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) - That's a pretty bold removal, and I think it would have been nice to have a bit of discussion first. Other Wikipedia articles about notable politicians (including presidents and senators) often have a section like this; furthermore, the fact that some works are already used as references does not discount them as "redundant" by any stretch of the imagination. I am sort of with you on the "unmerited" works, but the "redundant" works should be restored. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an explanation for why it's redundant. Normally I would agree that citation references do not obviate the use for listing certain items also as external links or wikilinks. However, that's not what's happening here. The same items are listed in three different links sections: "Further reading", "References" (which is not a citation - citations here are called "notes", whereas "references" is an external link / wikilink section with 3 items), and then "Written Works". It's really a matter of organization. Can't we just put everything together, get the headings right, and list each one once? Wikidemon (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Political image section image

Alternate images of Barack Obama streetlight banner

File:20081117 Barack Obama Streetsign Banner.JPG

File:20081117 Barack Obama Streetlight Banner.JPG

Streetlight banner from Richard M. Daley in Hyde Park community area shows Obama's political image as one of Chicago's own.

I am not sure what the disagreement is about, but if the tangential section on cultural and political images is to remain in the article, images such as one to right are proper for that section. The left image has been removed because it represents the section which is somewhat tangential. Maybe the right one is better, but one should remain in the article if the section remains.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is nothing more than a "congratulations" banner for a successful campaign. It has nothing to do with Obama's image (public or political), and it seems election-related and not at all biographically important. It's a nice picture and everything, but not really appropriate for this particular article. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better in the election article itself. --81.157.225.54 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what might make a great article? (or maybe not).... how about an article on the relationship between Obama and Chicago? There have been a number of articles about that, particularly the New Yorker piece. My only concern would be redundancy between that and the "early life" / career articles, and the state senate. But there is a distinct subject somewhere in there. The image would be perfect for that. Wikidemon (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not so clear to me that the fourth and fifth pictures of him speaking on unimportant dates adds more to the article than this image does. I have never seen such congratulations banners before, but maybe they are common. It is also not clear to me what types of pictures you think are relevant to this section. What types of images depict his political image. Maybe some celebratory images from an African village might also be nice as they celebrate him as one of their own would also be nice. His image is as a man of color representing the possibility of change, IMO. This picture depicts that.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added the picture to one of the sections on Chicago in Early life and career of Barack Obama. --81.157.225.54 (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Post election gun purchuse rise

At the end of the campaign I added a summary of reaction to news of his election. It mentioned street celebrations, the general view that U.S.-World relations will improve and the unprecedented rise in gun purchases due to fear of stricter gun laws under an Obama administration. The gun purchases section has been deleted for the reason that it is of minor importance. But it is of great importance. Without this sentence the article leaves a false impression that the reaction to Obama’s election was 100 percent positive. This phenomenon shows an undercurrent of fear in some quarters and potentially might be a security concern. The phenomenon has been reported by most major (and minor) media outlets in every section of the country. Edkollin (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think both might be a bit of recentism. Let's see the reactions at home and abroad to President Obama in about six months, and we'll know whether the world reaction was irrationally exuberant or not, and whether Obama's gonna take everyone's guns or not. --GoodDamon 08:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Recentism is irrelevant. These lines are there to discuss the immediate reaction to his election which was notable in that it was different in scope and intensity from reaction to U.S. general elections in at least the past few decades. I can not really see how the most notable or at least one of the most notable part of this persons life will be his election to the presidency and the reactions to it. We have the transition section and the upcoming Presidency articles to deal with long term effects Edkollin (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an article along the lines of Gun nuts coping with a Obama administration would be more suitable, as it surely has little to nothing to do with an article on Obama himself. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not think this merits a sub article although reaction to his election might. But I do think a sub article to the Wikipedia Article article about editors who do not even attempt to keep a neutral point of view is in order Edkollin (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The media also reported the shockingly low turnout in Alaska on election day - and then realized many more had voted absentee this year. Your unprecedented rise in gun purchases may also turn out to be not quite accurate. Let's wait we have some hard figures. Flatterworld (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just a matter of sourcing and/or language. There are other sources that do give hard figures. But it is not worth the time to research them if there is a "no way no how" consensus against immediate election reaction Edkollin (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is not biographically relevant data. This is about Obama's life, not the lives of those folks who "cling to their guns and their religion!" -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, one of Obama's ads asserted his support of the 2nd Amendment. So the paranoia of the gun toters is their problem, not Obama's. At best, it belongs in the campaign article - and only if evidence can be cited that it has anything to do with Obama being elected, e.g. by citing a properly-conducted survey of gun purchasers; as opposed to a wikipedia editor, or some editorialist somewhere, jumping to that conclusion based on his own assumptions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Two things. 1. The spike in gun sales is due to the Obama win (or more accurately, a democratic win) and this has been documented by so many sources it's crazy that people here are questioning it (though of course, like everything it needs to be cited); and 2. This has no place in a biography. Maybe in some other articles, but not here. But then again, I can understand the confusion because a lot of things that don't really belong here have made it in.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Racism and paranoia are alive and well in America. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Race - Excellent Source

I don't want to kick off the 'black/mixed-race' debate again, but it may be worthwhile integrating the following source into the article - it deals with the issue in an intelligent but easily accesible way http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7735503.stm Pretty Green (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a great article. Perhaps I am biased, though, as I made almost every argument above (race as an imprecise social construct, the two terms as not mutually exclusive, the change in perception in society).LedRush (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oohhhhh snap was just about to post it. Yeah very well construed article and surely a professionals opinion and literal meaning of a word rather than that of the medias usage of a word to highlight significance should be duly noted. Perhaps an edit can be finally made to note the relevance of discussion to the article? If only this was on the bbc a week or so ago, so much bandwidth...CorrectlyContentious (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's no real coincidence that it wasn't on the BBC a week ago - these things were always valid talking points, but the difference between the reliable media and Wikipedia talk pages is that one holds off until the range of opinions involved has had a chance to manifest itself and stabilise. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

obama views on gun control not listed

its not listed in his political positions article.he has got f grade by NRA,he wants to reinstate federal assault weapons ban. have a balanced article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.8.112 (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Obama himself. Details like that belong at Political positions of Barack Obama. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In his TV ads, he stated that he supports the second amendment. But we need more assault weapons out there. You never know when we'll be invaded by Canadians or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)