Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:36, 24 September 2009

Click to manually purge the article's cache

Template:Community article probation

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

faq page Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article? A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See , , The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)? A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it? A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common? A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc? A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? A7: Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article! A8: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy. A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened? A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A11: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this? A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Disruption Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly? A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed! A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article. A15: That's understandable. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted! A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior: Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted. On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance. New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies and sourcing guidelines. Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail? A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Template:USP-Article United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Columbia University Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indonesia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Kenya Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Template:WPCD-People

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-11). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880. Noam Cohen (2008-11-09). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times. Adrian Bridgwater (January 22, 2009). "Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack". ZDNet. Aaron Klein (March 8, 2009). "Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility". WorldNetDaily. Joshua Rhett Miller (March 9, 2009). "Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers". Fox News Channel. Mark Coleman (March 10, 2009). "Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims". The Daily Telegraph. Noam Cohen (July 19, 2009). "Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". The New York Times.

	Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 18, 2004 Today's featured article Main Page January 23, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 26, 2007 Featured article review Kept April 15, 2008 Featured article review Kept September 16, 2008 Featured article review Kept November 4, 2008 Today's featured article Main Page December 2, 2008 Featured article review Kept March 10, 2009 Featured article review Kept A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008. Current status: Featured article

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

Special discussion pages Article probation, Incidents Historical diffs, Weight, Race

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

he is not "first" "african american"

His father from Kenya (Africa) and his mother is from Kansas (United States of America); how much more African-American can one get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.38.167 (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

his mother is 100% white, he has 50% white blood. so he is not! if he is black, then he is also white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.34.212 (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read FAQ question number 2. Simply put we say what the sources say and the vast majority of main stream reliable sources call him African American and thus we refer to him in the lead as that. However, if you go down a little bit, the article does discuss his heritage. Brothejr (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Any source which ignores half a person's heritage (not to mention almost his entire upbringing and every positive influence on his life) is not 'reliable', at least not on the subject of race. Commercial biases have too much effect on their work. Lest we forget that some other presidents (especially Warren Harding have also had distant African ancestry. Lewis Hamilton's intro mentions both his heritage and perception of it (also being mixed-race in an almost-entirely-white domain), and I really don't understand why Obama's intro is not worded similarly.--MartinUK (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please read this before making any edits removing "black" or "African-American" from the article. Unitanode 13:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this popping up around the internets (I know, right?), and I was curious if it's been addressed on the talk page before:

Basically the claim is that 5 other United States Presidents have had African ancestry (this author only names four of them); any thoughts? Ikilled007 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible that that's so, but there are no reliable sources asserting it. If my late Mom's really sloppy geneology is right, my family in America dates to the 1660s. Hard to imagine no African-American or Native American in the woodpile all those centuries. PhGustaf (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well wait a sec, there are some sources which may or may not be reliable, but I can't even link to them here because they're all banned. Google it, thought, and you'll see some of the sources are not "biased". To me the question is not one of reliability of sources, but one of verifiability of claims. Ikilled007 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers, TV, magazines, etc. etc. heralded our "first African American President" again and again on and after the election. Per one-drop rules or whatever, other Presidents may be technically considered AA as well, who knows? But our the overwhelmingly vast majority of RS's haven't commented about that (and have commented the opposite); so for us to do so would be UNDUE. cheers, --guyzero | talk 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important point that the FAQ answer makes is that anyone can work out the details by reading the article. However, it is an interesting point for discussion and I think improvements can be made, at least to the FAQ answer. For example, is the fact that "Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black" really relevant? I mean, we know, as a scientific fact, that Obama has as much caucasian as Kenyan heritage, and we have plenty of reliable sources for this; it's even stated in the rest of the article. If Obama or the media simply use the "black", it is either for rhetoric or for brevity, so does it really count as a "reliable source"? I personally would suggest saying the he is the first "non-white" President, as this is the broadest term that is still scientifically accurate. However, I have another question: Why not omit mentioning his skin colour at all? We will only know that we have moved beyond racism when skin colour is no longer mentioned any more than eye colour or hair colour.Gregcaletta (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific accuracy" actually has little bearing on questions of race. It's widely agreed that racial categories are socially constructed, so while Obama (and other persons with one black and one white parent) is routinely identified as "black" in the United States, that would not necessarily be the case in any number of other societies. Thus to say that he is "non-white" is actually not "scientifically" accurate—he is partially of European ancestry—rather it is accurate only inasmuch as the U.S. has a "one drop" rule with respect to "blackness" dating back to slavery. So by saying he is "non-white" we would already be going by cultural norms, not hard science. The fact is, however, that most source (academic, newspapers, polls, TV programs, Obama himself) refer to him as "black" or "African American"—not as "non-white." In deciding whether or how to label a person in terms of their race, the only guide we really have are the norms of the given society, which are actually well reflected in newspapers and the like. It's for this very reason that we would not omit his "skin color", simply because reliable sources have incessantly (as in thousands or hundreds of thousands of times) mentioned his race and the fact that he is the "first black president." Obviously the goal of this or any other wiki article is not to move beyond racism (which we're pretty far away from anyway, unfortunately) but to accurately reflect what reliable sources say about a given topic. In this case it's pretty clear that we need to mention Obama's race and also pretty clear what "race" he is generally considered to be, at least in the United States. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that call Barack Obama an African America, for the simple fact that he isn't one. It's amazing how few people actually understand wikipedia policies, even though they are manifestly not complicated. "Misplaced Pages articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I argue that most newspapers do not qualify as being regarded as generally trustworthy when it comes to identification of race. Ergo this issue is 100% open, and the unverified "fact" that Mr Obama is African American should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.153.114 (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Bigtimepeace makes a good point: "race" is a cultural definition in this sense rather than a scientific one. I don't think there are any cultures that would refer to Barack Obama as "white", so therefore "non-white" is a good unbaiased way to describe him. On the other hand "African American" is a term which is used to describe him only by the sources that you mentioned, and is therefore biased. However, I agree that "non-white" sounds a bit silly, so why not just drop mentioning his skin colour as much as possible? Somewhere in the article it needs to be mentioned that "the election of Obama was highly significant to many people as symbolic of the historical journey of the African American people" or something better worded to that effect, but it really only needs to be mentioned in this way; there is no need to actually state whether he is African American or not, especially not in the first sentence of the article. As the FAQ states, people can discover his ethnic origins by reading the first section of the article about his parents.Gregcaletta (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "only", as in "only by the sources that you mentioned," but Obama is described as African American by virtually every reliable source we can think of including, not incidentally, himself. There are very few reliable sources which don't describe him as black or African American, so I don't understand the basis for your "bias" claim. Describing him as "non-white" would be the acme of bias, precisely because he is very rarely described that way—you personally don't think it's biased but that's not really relevant.

There has to this point been a pretty strong consensus that it is appropriate to identify him as an African American in the lead of the article, just as John F. Kennedy is identified as the first Catholic president of the U.S. (not in the first sentence but in the intro), as Benazir Bhutto is identified as the first female Prime Minister of Pakistan, and as Evo Morales is identified as Bolivia's "first fully indigenous head of state in the 470 years since the Spanish Conquest." The simple fact is that all of these heads of state broke down extremely significant barriers in their respective countries when they came to power, and as such it makes a great deal of sense for us to mention that fact prominently in the leads of those articles. For what it's worth, Britannica apparently refers to Obama as the "first African American president" in the intro to their article as well, so I think we're on pretty solid ground here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got an idea: why not use computer graphics programs to correctly identify the range of skin color the President traverses and we can identify him as "#000000 to #010101" (or whatever it would be) etc. We can do this for everyone with a bio article and then we don't have to identify anyone by subjective opinions of which racial construct people want to put them in. We could say Michael Jackson was #000000 as a child but by the time of death was #FDEEF4. Let's make Misplaced Pages objective. Ikilled007 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it, 007.

So if the people choose to say that Lincoln is "black" then are we supposed to assume he is (even though all evidence says otherwise)? People aren't to be trusted. Should we make this article about cats because of popular vote or vandalise a page? I think not. But since he is 50% "african american" and 50% "caucasian" one can base it on popular vote. If he was 75% white it would be much different. Since he is 50% each, but his appearance is more of an "African american" we can say that he is. Appearance is everything after all when it comes to the peoples "view". and based on popular vote I can say he is the "first" "African american".--71.184.11.46 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the articles on Misplaced Pages were only supposed to contain facts, not feelings. Just because someone considers themself closer to one race than the other doesn't make it a fact. My Labradoodle may consider himself more Labrador Retriever than Poodle, but you can't get the AKC to register him as one. Besides, according to the Misplaced Pages's article on human races, Carleton S. Coon has included Kenya in the extents of the Caucasian race. This means that Obama is technically 100% Caucasian no matter what his skin color is. On the other hand, since all humans originally came from Africa, then we could also say that every human in the U.S. is African American. Since I am a native of America, decended from Europeans that originally came from Arica, I consider myself Native-European-African American. The only way to stop the arguments is to get rid of any mention of race when we talk about someone's accomplishments. I'm tired of hearing first African American this or first Hispanic that.

Actually, we cover what a clear fact that reliable sources say and the vast majority call him Africian Americain. It is not our job to contrdict reiable source because we don't like what they say. Removing mention of his race is far more based on feelings that accuratly reporting reliable soucres using the term Africian Americian. --70.24.177.22 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on race

Some people have mentioned that he refers to himself as a African American. If that counts as a reliable source, then can someone put it up as a citation in the article (citation number: 127), please? Thanks. Also, there are 4 citations given to justify the term "African American" but only one of them actually uses the term. The other three say "black", so we could just delete those three, or refer to him as "black" instead; I don't really care either way. For the introduction, what do you guys think about something like "the election of Obama was highly significant to many people, as it was considered "the last racial barrier in American politics"" as the second sentence of the article (that's how the New York times puts it). Obviously we could word it better, but that way we would get consensus on it, because it doesn't actually make a claim about his race, so no one can object that it is not a verifiable fact.Gregcaletta (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We could of course find citations for the proposition that Obama self-identifies as African-American, but we don't need to do that in the article because the article does not discuss his self-identification. We're just using that as an extra side-check here on the talk page. Perhaps another article could talk about this in more detail. You have a good point that we should probably mention why race was important to some people, although the Times quote is more evocative than exlanatory - there are plenty of other racial barriers in America. Wikidemon (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily suggesting we put the citations in the article, I was just wondering if someone could point me to what he has actually said, because I doubt he would often make a statements like "I am black" and I doubt even more he would say "I am an African American". I expect he has referred to the fact that other people identify him as black, but that doesn't really count. I guess even if he has called himself African American explicitly, and if we don't consider it relevant enough for the article, then it shouldn't really be relevant in the determination of his race either. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm getting off topic. I don't really think it is important what we state as his race. I think that in order to get consensus on this and avoid the discussion altogether, it would be good to replace the first sentence of the article --

1. Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States, the first African American to hold the office

-- with two separate sentences, such as these:

1. Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States. His election overcame a major racial barrier in American politics, and was highly significant to many people, because previously the office had been held only by white men.

This includes some significant extra information, and his race is no longer a matter for dispute. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's more precise and a good try, but it sidesteps the issue of great importance to many people, that Obama is the first black (per the prevailing norms and definitions of the time in the United States) president. It is being black, not just being non-white. We have obviously never had an Asian-American president, a Hispanic president, or a Native American president (though some probably had some ancestry there). What is important to people is not that Obama is the first black to hold the office in some scientific or technical sense, but that this particular racial barrier has been overcome. There are still plenty of other barriers to cross. Wikidemon (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To me those all seem like good reasons for choosing the second rather than the first. If there had already been a Hispanic president and an Asian president then his election would not have been significant to a smaller group of people. It states that he specifically as overcome one specific barrier. The second case also states explicitly that this is important to many people, rather than just mentioning his race as if it were an arbitrary fact, though some people even dispute the fact. I think the second option is more precise, more comprehensive. I thought it would also be more likely to reach a consensus, because it doesn't actually state anything disputable, but it seems like this is such a touchy subject that we not going to get consensus anyway, so I'll just leave it. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is first president of Muslim Heritage?

Is there any other president who has has parents or stepparents or ancestors who were muslim? Wouldn't it be worth noting?? 16:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point... I don't know the answer. Probably if you look back many generations there are other presidents who have very distant ancestors, but Obama would be the first one who has Muslims in the closer family. He has so many firsts, and with only 45 (?) presidents, every one of them is first at something, so we probably stick with the ones that are most noteworthy. That one might be worth mentioning in an article more closely focused Obama's heritage. There is a "family of" article, where it might go. There is a "public image" article that mentions the untrue rumors of Obama himself being Muslim. Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we counting Sons-in-law? That would be Ali. Or did you mean US presidents? ;) Ronabop (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There have only ben 43 presidents... Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Protestant?"

Real quick question here. Why was his religious affiliation on the infobar changed from Christian to protestant? It has said "Christian" for months now and to change it to Protestant is a bit odd. He resigned from the UCC a while back and really doesn't have any current affiliations with Protestantism. I think "Christian" sufficed well enough because he is indeed Christian but is no longer Protestant. Why the sudden change? Even the sources say "Christian." Thanks. Assume Good Faith. No offense intended! OtherAJ (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know and don't much care, but I thought a simple division within Christianity was: orthodox, catholic, protestant, and fringe. My vague impression is that he was somewhere in the third of these. Maybe some editor thought that Protestantism was accurate (even if there's no formal affiliation) and a bit more informative than the blanket term Christianity. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that I don't believe Mormons consider themselves Protestant, since they come from a different tradition, and I'm sure they would object to being called "fringe". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness Obama's not a Mormon, then, huh? Can you imagine the public outcry there would be? That's the last thing we need at this page. Abrazame (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care much either way as this all seems awfully pedantic, but does one stop being Protestant the moment one leaves a Protestant church? Tarc (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed "regime" to "administration"

Out-of-date OGG Sound Article

Just wanted to point out that the OGG recorded for this article is out of date, stating that President Obama is still the Senator. I believe it to be recorded before he was elected president. Any chance of updating? Dbrown1986 (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Yep, it's dated Sep. 3, 2008. Dbrown1986 (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Certified Copy of Kenyan Birth Certificate

Ethnicity in first sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama, Honduras and Israel

Seriously

I Agree With The Above....

Changes to a few footnotes

One of the problems with articles such as this is that the need to cite everything makes the main page a mess. There's a new citation option (see WP:LDR) which allows the bulk of the referencing to be done in the referencing section. In addition, I've found that one can include multiple citations in a single footnote, thereby reducing the need for consecutive footnotes int he main text.

I've tried this in two instance, first the three citations in the first cited paragraph referencing Kansas. Formerly footnotes 8,9,and 10, it is now one footnote with three citations.

Second, in the state legislator section, I looked at the footnotes relating to the primary vote, formerly two separate footnotes with a total of seven citations, and made it into a single footnote.

Before, the main text included this mess:

While it now contains: <ref name="Democratic primary">

Much easier to read.

Let me know if you have objections to the approach.

One downside is that I don't see an obvious way to combine unnamed refs with named refs in a single footnote, so I won't attempt to do that.--SPhilbrickT 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you doing constructively contributing to the article and then collegially explaining your edits on the talk page here?! Can't you see that's not the way people do things around here?!

Just kidding. It's refreshing to find a new editor arriving with something well thought-out that makes everybody's work easier. It seems like your changes will make it infinitely easier to view a section of readable text in the edit window and to scan for the text you mean to be editing. As for me, I welcome you to continue these edits and I thank you. Abrazame (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and sorry about not fitting in with the usual climate :) I'll try to tackle a few other examples over the next few days—it makes a modest improvement to the viewing experience for readers, but a meaningful improvement for editors. It's a challenge finding the text in the sea of reference material. (Not a bad thing, the usual articles I patrol are sorely needing of more references).--SPhilbrickT 12:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

<- So far, I've moved 18K of reference material out of the main text and in to the reference section, making it a little easier to wade through the material. Will continue, think I've done it all OK, but let me know if you see any mistakes.

So far everything looks good. As these changes are not controversial and are not really removing important refs you won't see a problem here. The main issue that the edit wars happen here are over controversial and/or POV editing. Your stuff is actually improving the article while keeping the content the same. Good stuff and keep it up. Brothejr (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK done first pass.

• 250 footnotes reduced to 211 (no citations removed)
• 26K of footnote material moved out of the main text into the reference area, making the main text easier to navigate.

There still are some assertions with multiple footnotes, but these are footnotes used more than once, so I don't see how to easily reduce the number of footnotes showing in the text.

It is also possible to take the single footnotes and convert to the new style, which will also move more material out of the main text and into the reference section, but there is less "bang for the buck" compared to the multiple cited footnotes, although I note some "single footnotes" have multiple citations, so they may be worth tackling. Perhaps later, now I'll take a bit of a break.--SPhilbrickT 01:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Never Took Calculus

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• FA-Class Kansas articles
• Mid-importance Kansas articles
• WikiProject Kansas articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Top-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class Indonesia articles
• Mid-importance Indonesia articles
• WikiProject Indonesia articles
• FA-Class Africa articles
• Low-importance Africa articles
• FA-Class Kenya articles
• Low-importance Kenya articles
• WikiProject Kenya articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles