Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions about Barack Obama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

Political image section image

Resolved

Alternate images of Barack Obama streetlight banner

File:20081117 Barack Obama Streetsign 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)

Why? This has nothing to do with his early life and career. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Moved that image form that article to the Presidential transition of Barack Obama article. Lestatdelc (talk) 03:21, 20 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. --Good Damon 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)

Undeniably true, though I don't know that this is evidence of either (paranoia possibly, but almost definitely not racism).LedRush (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure either, but it doesn't matter. The purported rise in gun purchases has no bearing on Obama's life, and therefore on his biography. --Good Damon 18:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Only if somebody decides to shoot him with one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

God forbid. I am sure you're joking, but I'm actually worried. The damage to the country would be almost impossible to come back from.LedRush (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There would be major rioting, and then the racists would say, "See, they can't be trusted to be civilized, and that's why we need our assault rifles." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the articles I have read have cited racism as a reason for the spike in gun sales so it is not usable. But my POV says it is definably a part of this. Bill Maher on his show called the potential assassination of Obama the subject everybody talks about in private but nobody talks about in public and that has been my experience. I did put "potentially might be a security concern" as one argument to put the line in. Edkollin (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not so private anymore[1] Edkollin (talk) 07:11, 20 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)

Unfortunately TV ads don't have a great history of accurately reflecting the persons views. It's too bad really. Arkon (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus the NRA always gives Democrats low grades. There is nothing new there. Brothejr (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

True. I myself received an E- from the NRA- and I'm not even a registered democrat. L'Aquatique[talk] 10:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is barack Obama officially no longer a senator?

???Spitfire19 (Talk) 02:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes he resigned effective November 16. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Donofrio v Obama Citizenship Case Moves To New Supreme Court Level

Closing. This is the umpteenth appearance of this fringe theory and WP:BLP violation.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

this is big and needs to be included. here is the docket number http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm

On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case.

pluz beg vs obama case.why wiki is not adding this important stuff and saying that its tinfoil hat.you have a serious case agasint potus elect and no mention here.it does not matter how absurd the case is.the msm is going in the first dog.this just shows that wiki is nothing but a censorship site.

Again, no. Not even Rush Limbaugh will touch this with a ten-foot-pole. It is a fringe lawsuit. I could sue Obama for being literally a space alien. Hell, I could push the case all the way to SCOTUS if I had enough money to keep up appeals. Doesn't mean my case has merit. Case -- and discussion -- closed. Please see the huge history in this article of people bringing this up over and over again. I can't wait until December 2nd, when nothing will have changed, and this nuttiness goes away. --Good Damon 03:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Section moved from article to talk

I've moved the following text here. I don't think it is of much use to the article, its addition smacks of recentism as well being a reporting of one person's views. Whilst a general section on religious views on Obamaa may or may not be useful, I don't think this large section is relevant. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Attack by a major figure of the Roman Catholic Church against President-elect Barack Obama

The National Catholic Reporter reports on November 19, 2008 in its internet-version at

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2588 that Cardinal James Stafford harshly criticized President-elect Barack Obama Nov. 13, :saying he has "an agenda and vision that are aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic." Cardinal James Stafford, head of the :Apostolic Penitentiary, a major Vatican tribunal, spoke on "Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: Being True in Body :and Soul" in a lecture sponsored by the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic :University of America in Washington. Saying that the United States experienced a "cultural earthquake" when Obama was elected :president Nov. 4, Stafford said the president-elect "appears to be a relaxed, smiling man" with rhetorical skills that are "very :highly developed." "But under all that grace and charm, there is a tautness of will, a state of constant alertness, to attack and :resist any external influence that might affect his will," he added. The cardinal compared the upcoming years of the Obama :administration to (sic) "Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane".

The Catholic News Agency (http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14355) revealed more details about the highly controversial words :of the Cardinal on November 17, 2008: If 1968 was the year of America’s ‘suicide attempt,’ 2008 is the year of America’s :exhaustion,” he said, contrasting the year of Humane Vitae’s promulgation with this election year. “For the next few years, :Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden,” Cardinal Stafford told his audience. Catholics who weep the “hot, angry :tears of betrayal” should try to identify with Jesus, who during his agony in the garden was “sick because of love.” The cardinal :even attributed America’s decline to the Supreme Court’s decisions such as the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which imposed permissive :abortion laws nationwide.

Taken from article Pretty Green (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I was about to remove that, but you beat me to it. It might have a place, somewhere and in a more condensed form, but not in his biography. L'Aquatique[talk] 11:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the correct place for the divide declared, if not actual, between a major religion and the next administration. I don't pretend to understand the fixation on one particular subject, but is there an article on the matter exemplified by the news item "a bishop declaring voters for Obama must repent before receiving communion" ? Perhaps some of the text could go there, but that still leaves, where do the divides get mentioned here? BTW: I left a note on the editor's talk page mentioning it would've been good to come here first, and some possible objections. Shenme (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the US is supposed to have separation between Church and State, this "divide" is perfectly normal - and a good thing too! We don't want religious wack-jobs and kooks imposing their views on government. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See also the (smaller) mention at James Stafford, which has a third ref to same speech. Shenme (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cardinal Stafford's remarks

The really terrible remarks by Cardinal James Stafford, reported by practically the entire world press, including CNN, and nota bene also the Catholic News agency and the National Catholic Reporter remind me, an elderly person by now, of the lining up of important segments of the Roman Catholic Church with the forces of the political extreme right, we experienced in the 1930s in my continent, old Europe. I remember very well the day in August 2008 this summer, when I saw during a nice local book exhibition on the beaches in Lekeitio in the Spanish Basque country that photograph, in an old book, of Cardinal Pacelli (later Pius XII) together with General Franco on the beaches of Bilbao, Spain, in summer 1937, when Pacelli flew in extra from Rome (that is what I do not understand by sainthood, by the way) to greet the advancing fascist troups and to congratulate them on their advances. On the 26th of April the same year, shortly before this landing in Bilbao, the Nazi Legion Condor bombed the Basque city of Guernica (see: Bombing of Guernica) to the ground; it was a Monday, a busy market day, and the Franco side knew it, and yet they bombed the city, using phosphoric bombs to create a maximum killing among the innocent civilians. Yes, sainthood for Pius XII! Praise to the defenders of life, as long as this life is not yet born, this life is not Basque, and not on the wrong side of the Spanish Civil War!

Several readers of the quotes just could not believe the tone, the content and spirit behind these terribles words, spoken by the Cardinal. Also, there is no doubt about the political weight of this gentleman in the Vatican, who, nota bene - is the only major figure in the world - excpept for Osama Ben Laden to have spoken in such a belligerent, aggressive and negative tone about America's forthcoming President. So what has happened is that the conservative hierarchy in Rome seems to have declared cultural war against the new power constellation in America, something which democrats across the globe should watch very carefully.

As someone who deeply indentifies with ecumenical liberation theology I can only say here "God bless Your new President", and "God bless America"!

User Weber, 14:56 Central European time, November 20

Hello Weber. I must say, I deeply appreciate your perspective, and do believe this information can find a home in Wikipedia. It's the sort of thing that more properly belongs in one of the religious articles instead of the biography of Barack Obama, or perhaps in James Stafford's biography. If Stafford's horrible comments had made a significant impact on Barack Obama's life, then they would be suitable for his biography. But so far -- and personally, I'm glad about this -- Stafford's rant against Obama doesn't seem to be having much impact. --Good Damon 14:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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:

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

This page isn't discussion of the linkage of bloodline to success, or any other looney tunes theories or original research, it is for discussion about how to improve the subject article, which is about Barack Obama, not you and your theories. -- 24.62.60.194 (talk) 20:06, 24 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. --Good Damon 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)

Indeed only material belongs in the article if it comes from a mainstream source; please learn about wikipedia its rules. -- 24.62.60.194 (talk) 20:06, 24 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. --Good Damon 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)

GoodDamon, I was good friends with a forth cousin and my family close with a fifth. But then, I do live in a small country area and family means more here. I have already explained its value to the elite and to freemasons. When you look at the facts, the odds of being fifth cousins with Obama, it is remarkable how many people of various great successes are related (and 'great' being of no exaggeration, as we are talking about the most officially powerful and famous people in recent history.) How they all interconnect is an issue of interest within itself (not to everyone, but to those interested in bloodlines and similar topics.) But how closely men and women of power, wealth and fame are connected in this finding is of public interest. How many of them interconnect so closely only increases the importance of this issue. Neurolanis (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I find genealogy fascinating, but no reliable sources indicate it is in any way meaningful, especially with large distances in the relationship. (At fifth cousin, you share a great-great-great-great grandparent. At ninth cousin, you're probably related to every single person in your town, if it has existed for a long time, or the relationship may pre-date your ancestor's presence in this country.) Except for direct lineage in famous families (the Kennedy family, for instance) I think you'll find that the likelihood someone is connected by blood to famous people is about the same, regardless of how famous the person whose lineage you're examining is. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and trivia, and this qualifies as trivia, nothing more. --Good Damon 20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I already displayed on the page linked to below how only a few hundred people would be related to you as a fifth cousin, and much less at fourth and so forth. I of course agree that when you go beyond fifth cousin that it exceeds what you would call a coincidence because you're talking thousands of people. This matter is hardly trivia, as how the elite connect at such close quarters as fifth cousin is certainly of public interest. Neurolanis (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

”public interest”?? In an earlier post, I noted that General Lee is my fifth cousin and I wondered aloud, just for the heck of it, whether Obama and I had any significant relations. Hence, the addition of General Lee in Obama's family article caught my attention! So how related are we? For the record, to be clear here on “ith” cousins, there are two distinctly different methods used (described here). Using the "counting" system, Lee is my fifth cousin according to my family's lore (I am not sure which side of Lee's family my great-great-great-great grandparent was on). But, using the "removed” system Lee and I are first cousins, four times removed. Perhaps I've uncovered something important in this (I can just see the blogs: Obama's fifth cousin edits his pedia bio!), but wait, General Lee is Obama's fifth cousin, eight times removed. Apparently (correct me if I’m wrong here as I’m not absolutely sure about this), there is a common ancestor connecting Obama to General Lee that goes back thirteen generations. Shucks, this doesn't amount to anything. Modocc (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a noteable family connection, as only hundreds are related at the fifth cousin level. Many people likely do have some close relations with someone significant. But as I have already stated, multiple times, this involves many, many people, from past presidents, to current political powers, to very wealthy businessmen, to many of the most famous individuals of our time. Neurolanis (talk) 22:39, 24 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

Update: The descision was made and the page on bloodlines we deleted. Neurolanis (talk) 16:14, 23 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)

It's a step forward in the right direction so I applaud the author for discussing the issue and acknowledging both sides of the argument. It seems she doesn't really understand the reasons that some people have strong conviction in asserting Obama's mixed-raced heritage. I personally find it a bit racist and insulting against his caucasian heritage to overstate his 'black' heritage (whether or not he self-identifies that way) because it devalues the role one side of his family played in creating the man he is. Perhaps this article will set in motion new discussions and acknowledgements within popular media as it becomes more acceptable to talk about it. So good on her for that. Y2rusty (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say that he may not be the 'average' sort of African-American (i.e. a black man whose ancestry probably lies in Africa and lives in America), but he is in fact African-American. One parent is African, one is American, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that that makes him an African-American, just not the average sort.58.175.169.47 (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

I'm sure Obama politely chuckled. In fact, it kind of looks like he is. When LBJ left the White House on January 20, 1969, a reporter asked him if he was glad to be leaving. He said, "Ah certainly am!" I've got a hunch Bush would say the same. The Presidency has a way of wearing you down. Why anybody wants that job, is hard to say. Must be the perks. Like the private jet. And the constant threat of assassination, a true sign that you've "arrived". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If the concern is that mentioning when his term of office begins is too much like "current events", I submit that saying he is president-elect is also "current events" & both will need revision on Jan 20 - that's the nature of an online encyclopedia. The exact date on which he retired his Senate seat is clearly a current event that ought not survive in the lede past Jan 20. In fact, it is of such little importance even now - and should be removed from the lede now --JimWae (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is approximately how much Nov 16 will figure after Jan 20:

Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk hʊˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the United States, and the first African-American to become President of the U.S, having been elected in 2008 and taking office in January 2009. From 2005 until 2008, Obama was the United States Senator from Illinois. --JimWae (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

True, and thanks for the perspective. If this were an ordinary article it would be completely unimportant. This one is a featured article and gets ready by tens of thousands of people every day, so there's a little more effort to be precise even in a wording that is guaranteed to change in two months. Wikidemon (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, how could that tid-bit be mmore important to the lede now than the date he will take office?--JimWae (talk) 04:20, 25 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)

Grammy Awards:
On 28 August 2008, after adding a "Works" section with redundant citation entries for Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope (which already had citation entries in the References section because both books are cited multiple times in the article text by shortened footnotes), as part of chopping out "puffery", Scjessey removed any mention of Obama having won Best Spoken Word Album Grammy Awards for the audio book versions of both of his books:

22:31, 28 August 2008 Scjessey (→Books authored: - retitle, chop out "puffery")

On 19 September 2008, Duuude007 tacked on "~Audio Book Grammy Award Winner: Spoken word" notes (with citations) to the redundant "Works" section citation entries for Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope:

20:31, 19 September 2008 Duuude007 (→Works: adding gramophone citations)

On 20 September 2008, Bobblehead substituted one of the two citations to citations added by Duuude007:

17:25, 20 September 2008 Bobblehead (→Works: More dates, ref fix..)

On 6 November 2008, ThreeOfCups wikified (Audio Book Grammy Award Winner: Spoken word) the note added by Duuude007 and added a second citation to the citation for The Audacity of Hope having won a best spoken word album Grammy Award for its audio book version:

03:12, 6 November 2008 ThreeOfCups (→Written works: added citation)

The Wikipedia articles for Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton all note their Best Spoken Word Album Grammy Awards in the text of their articles, as did this article until removed by Scjessey on 28 August 2008.

I propose that a sentence noting Obama's two Best Spoken Word Album Grammy Awards be restored to the text of the article, instead of being relegated to being tacked on as a notes to redundant citation entries (with citations to the citation entries) for Obama's two books in a redundant "Written works" section.
Newross (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

History of the "References" section and redundant citations in "Written works" section:
On 9 January 2007, SandyGeorgia, replaced the "References" section with a "Notes" section and a "References" section (containing only one citation -- for Dreams from My Father) to implement shortened footnotes:

01:26, 9 January 2007 SandyGeorgia (→References: add Notes/ref section to begin page nos on Obama book)

On 14 January 2007, HailFire added a citation for The Audacity of Hope to the "References" section:

12:51, 14 January 2007 HailFire (→References: added "The Audacity of Hope" and ISBN numbers)

On 14 January 2007, HailFire removed citation entries for Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope made redundant by their inclusion in the "References" section:

12:56, 14 January 2007 HailFire (/* Further reading */ deleted Obama citations relocated to /* References */ section; deleted Stanley Crouch article now referenced in - →Popular culture: section)

On 1 May 2007, Y renamed the "References" section to the "Works" section (presumably because the only citations then in the section were Obama's two books):

16:40, 1 May 2007 Y (→References: chg to Works)

On 13 May 2007, HailFire renamed the "Works" section to the "Cited works" section (presumably to indicate it was for citations of works cited multiple times in the "Notes" section by shortened footnotes):

15:10, 13 May 2007 HailFire (/* Works */ Renamed section /* Cited works */; both books are listed here to give full bibliography details for abbreviated "Obama (1995)" and "Obama (2006)" references in - →Notes)

On 18 February 2008, I added a citation for Mendell's Obama: From Promise to Power to the "Cited works" section prior to citing it once in the "Notes" section with a shortened footnote with plans to cite it again in future edits:

05:01, 18 February 2008 Newross (→Cited works: add 2007 biography of Obama by David Mendell)

On 18 February 2008, HailFire reverted my addition of Mendell's book to the "Cited works" section because it wasn't written by Obama and the "References" → "Works" → "Cited works" section had been added by SandyGeorgia to implement shortened footnotes:

22:17, 18 February 2008 HailFire (→Cited works: removed book not written by Obama; section added by User:SandyGeorgia for ref notation only; see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=99458271)

On 8 April 2008, HailFire moved the "References" → "Works" → "Cited works" section into the "Notes" section under the heading "Cited works" (presumably to emphasize that the citations were used in conjunction with shortened footnotes in the "Notes" section):

05:06, 8 April 2008 HailFire (merged /* Notes */ and - ?Cited works: sections)

On 8 April 2008, I re-added a citation for Mendell's Obama: From Promise to Power under the "Cited works" heading in the "Notes" section after citing it twice in the "Notes" section with shortened footnotes with plans to cite it again in future edits:

15:54, 8 April 2008 Newross (→Notes: add 'Mendell (2007). Obama: From Promise to Power' to Cited works; consolidate references)

On 1 June 2008, Tom renamed the "Notes" section to the "References" section (the section still included citations for Obama's two books and Mendell's book under the heading "Cited works"):

02:41, 1 June 2008 Tom (→Notes: rename)

On 28 August 2008, Kanodin renamed the "References" section back to the "Notes" section and moved the three books under the "Cited works" heading into a "References" section to match terminology in WP:CITESHORT originally used by SandyGeorgia to implement shortened footnotes:

01:14, 28 August 2008 Kanodin (→References: changing section header names and sizes to comply with WP:CITESHORT; if you revert, please join the talk page too, because I hate talking to myself)

On 28 August 2008, Scjessey added redundant citations for Obama's two books from the "References" section to a newly created "Works" section:

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 17 November 2008, I removed the "Works" → "Written works" section that included redundant citations for Obama's two books that already had citations in the "References" section:

17 November 2008 Newross (→Written works: remove section added on 28 August 2008 by Scjessey; entries listed in section were redundant or unmerited; see talk page)

On 17 November 2008, Scjessey restored the "Written works" section that included redundant citations for Obama's two books that already had citations in the "References" section:

18:55, 17 November 2008 Scjessey (partial restore of written works pending further talk page discussion)

Although the John McCain article has a Writings by McCain section with redundant citations and the Al Gore article has a Selected publications section, none of the articles for the U.S. Presidents have "Written works" sections, nor does the Hillary Rodham Clinton article.

Citations for Obama's two books could be included in optional standard appendices "Works", "Notes, Footnotes, or References", or "Further reading" sections, but there is no reason that they should be redundantly included in more than one of these sections, and since they are required to be in the "Notes, Footnotes, or References" section because they are sources for the article's text, they should not be included in other sections.
Newross (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is one main point to this (section): The article should have definitely a "works" section. Readers are looking for such section and IMO most won't look further.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion. It is unconvincing.
Newross (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

closing oft-repeated things per WP:NOT#FORUM; no likelihood of leading to change in article

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The absurdity of the “Black” vs “Bi Racial” discussion

That section of the discussion page deserves an article of it’s own titled “The new racism” Were it not so reprehensible, it would be amusing that those who at first sight, had he not become universally recognizable, would have labeled Obama “Black” (and probably in some cases, various pejoratives) without reservation, now want to semantically debate his ethnicity. The fact of the matter is, thanks to 18th and 19th century “Southern gentlemen” slavocrats prone to rape, most African Americans could arguably be called “Bi Racial”, but I seriously doubt that anyone would consider adding such amendments to all written material on anyone described as African American or Black. The entire discussion is little more then thinly veiled racism and a feeble attempt to intellectualize bigotry, not to mention a total waste of finite bandwidth Cosand (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cosand see your talk page. — Writegeist (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist...I can only conclude by your comments in my talk page, that you either totally misunderstand what I am saying, or you miss the backhanded subtleties of some insisting that Obama be refured to as “mixed race” as opposed to “Black or “African American”. Cosand (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

would it not be sufficient to list his cultural background (which is already accomplished in the article)? For example, I don't consider myself "white"; I go by my ethnic heritage; 25% German, 25% Azorean Portuguese, 25% Italian, 25% other European (including Norman, Polish, Danish, British, etc.). Not to mention the fact that all members of species Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Humans) originate from Africa anyway, so we all have African ancesty at some point in our geneology.--75.48.25.190 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have already stated in several previous iterations of this discussion, it is not that Obama is "black" that is remarkable (there are many "black" presidents around the world), it is that he is African-American. This has a special historical and cultural significance in the US, and it has little or nothing to do with the color of his skin or his ancestry. That is why most reliable sources refer to him as "African-American". It is mostly non-US media that discusses skin color, etc., because the historical and cultural significance I alluded to is not important to people outside of the US. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

People who identify as mixed race are specifically citing Obama and Lewis Hamilton as symbols of their own identity; that makes this aspect notable. Undoubtedly many 'black' Americans have white ancestors (and some 'white' Americans have Native American or black ancestors), but Obama has one white and one black parent - which means that his cultural heritage is split and his identity divided. The idea that Obama is distinct from most African-Americans due to the lack of family history with slavery might also be notable.--MartinUK (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In American usage, does the "African" in "African-American" denote slave ancestry? Is that its cultural and historical significance? For WP — which is a global, not an American, resource — it would be more accurately informative to describe Obama as Kenyan-American. There's an interesting article on the subject here — Writegeist (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All it really is is a more politically-correct term than "black"..which itself supplanted "colored" or "Negro"...to describe a person of color in America. Actual ancestry or lineage doesn't play much of a part. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Black is not really disfavored, it's just less formal and evokes skin color rather than heritage even though the terms are in many ways interchangeable. In American usage, calling someone African American indicates that the person is perceived and identified by self and others as black. The term itself does not imply the reasons, but the reasons are some mixture of a number traits such as appearance, culture, heritage, accent, personal style, and so on - a non-exhaustive, non-exclusive list of things that add up to a societal and personal judgment. The significance is that blacks are a minority group that has been enslaved, oppressed, segregated, excluded, discriminated against, etc. In the march to equality there are a series of very important first steps - first black lawyer, first black college professor, major league baseball player, first black billionaire, mayor, governor, and now president. We could get into technicalities, that one of them was part white, another descended from African immigrants rather than slaves, one wasn't "black enough" meaning that he was born into privilege and grew up without having to overcome hardship, yet another was not born in America. But these secondary points, which may be important in themselves, miss the core of what is important about being the first person identified as black to do a certain thing in America. The point is not so much the personal story as the fact that it represents a new achievement for society as a whole. Each represents a door opening for the first time. Hopefully someday all the doors will be open and we can look at racism in America as a historical event. I hope that explains why, in designating American firsts, the American perception of race is what counts because the significance is a development in American history and a change in attitudes. Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wikidemon, and all of you who took the trouble to give similarly incisive explanations. Now I think I understand! — Writegeist (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (U

What is so absurd about telling the truth? Obama is mixed race. What is so difficult about that? I am mixed race, and I don't downplay it like he does. He definitely has a problem with accepting what he is, in my opinion. mystynight

Touch the Clouds

President-elect Barack Obama is related to the great Minneconjou Teton Lakota chieftain Touch the Clouds on motherside. J.B. (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think there's room in this article for distant family relationships. Out of curiosity, is the relationship direct (as in, Touch the Clouds is his great-great-great-great-grandfather) or indirect, such as Nth cousin Nth removed? --Good Damon 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

He is indirectly related to Amos Charging First, son of Touch the Clouds. {{subst:User:Jouke Bersma/sig}} 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama JR, not II

Because only two persons in the family line have the same name, the first (his father) would be referred to as SR. and the younger as JR. Titles of 1st, 2nd, 3rd occur when there are three members having the same name, and thus far, this is not the case. His name needs to be Barack Hussein Obama Jr. Just another guy trying to be a Chemical Engineer, Nanobiotechnologist, and Mathematician (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, his name is Obama II, because that's the name he was given by his mother. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 03:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is answered in the FAQ. The name on his birth certificate actually includes the II. So it's what goes on this page. --Good Damon 03:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the "name police." Going from primary sources rather than published sources is called original research. If Obama calls himself "Jr." and if reliable sources call him "Jr.," and if he should logically be called "Jr.,"then we should follow along and call him "Jr." rather than "II." Google News Search has 116 hits for "Barack Hussein Obama Jr." and only 7 hits for "Barack Hussein Obama II," including 3 for the same text in the same paper. Papers using "Jr." include Miami Herald, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Washington Post, Newsday, Forbes, BBC News and Globe and Mail. Birth certificates commonly have spelling variants, typos, or inconsistencies from the parental intention like "II" instead of "Jr." "II" would be correct if the person were not the son of the person he was named for. My own mother's birth certificate had a spelling of her first name that varied from what she used all her life, on legal documents. Edison (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You make some very good points. Does anyone know what form Obama himself uses? If he uses Jr. and the majority of reliable sources use Jr., then this might be worth revisiting. --Good Damon 04:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you use a better search term: Barack Obama II vs Barack Obama Jr, it's a big swing the other direction. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, that seems to settle it pretty thoroughly. --Good Damon 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

But neither of those names are candidates for his "full name."Anyway, I did not do Google hits count. I looked at "Google news archive" which has more reliable sources and fewer questionable sources. There , "Barack Obama Jr." gets 38 sources using the term and "Barack Obama II" only gets 1 source, so "Jr." still wins as the appropriate term to use in Wikipedia. (Why isn't anyone arguing for "Barry Sotero?" Edison (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because "Barack Hussein Obama II" is how is name is listed on the Certificate of Live Birth that his campaign made public a ways back? When we're talking about am infobox field called, y'know, "birth name", then that kinda trumps this googling for "Jr" stuff. Tarc (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians who know nothing about Jr./Sr. and I/II/III/IV should refrain from posting changes. Miss Manners explains why 'Jr.' is incorrect in this case. 'II' is also wrong, but it's on his birth certificate so we may as well leave it as is. Flatterworld (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Miss Manners in the book cited does not require that it be "II" rather than "Jr." In U.S. usage, the son of a man who is given the same full name would be "Jr. His son with the same full name would be "III." The Jr. or III would remain in the name even if the older one died. The convention of rotating the suffix so that a "Jr." becomes a "Sr." if his father of the same name dies and his son with the same name survives is not a naming convention which applies. See Martin Luther King III who remains that even though Martin Luther King, Sr. and Martin Luther King, Jr. are dead. See [4]. As for "legal name," the U.S. Supreme Court [5], (said in 1830 that suffixes such as "Junior" or "Senior" are not legally part of the name, but are merely descriptive. A law dictionary [6] agreed that such terms of seniority are "ordinarily mere matter of description, and no part of a person's legal name. We should follow the usage Obama has preferred in documents where he filled in his full name, and the usage of reliable sources. Other than the birth certificate, how has he entered his full name on documents? Edison (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This again? It's his full formal name, BHOBII. Not a matter for secondary sourcing - in this case the primary source is the one to go with. This is a specific MOS issue, not the general case about reliable sourcing.Wikidemon (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Great original research. As soon as you can provide reliable secondary sources where the predominant usage is "II" we can switch from "Jr." to "II." This is just like those wanting to call him the "presumptive president-elect" because in their hearts they know they are right, national newspapers notwithstanding. Edison (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense. It is the name on his birth certificate left|thumb|150px|Obama's birth certificate Regardless of new reportage, it does not trump the original source reference of his birth certificate.Lestatdelc (talk)

I don't support changing it to Jr. Using "II" appears to be correct per the MOS. It's not a question of one thing trumping another. The pertinent question there is his legal birth name, not predominant usage. If this were a matter subject to legitimate dispute we could look to secondary sources regarding his birth name, but I don't think that is under any real question. If we asked what he calls himself or what other people call him, that would be a different matter. Wikidemon (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if a birth certificate does not trump newspaper reports as a reliable source then the encyclopedic credibility of this entire project is flawed. Mfield (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, how is the birth certificate OR? It has come to us from media outlets and from factcheck.org. If a primary source document is published in a secondary source, it is published in a secondary source, which makes it not OR, right? -Rrius (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For the field that is called "birth name", and for the lead of the article where the full name is usually given, the only document that really matters is the "certificate of live birth". This has really been much ado about nothing. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

People are placing far too much emphasis on what a birth certificate says . "Straight Dope" notes that Olympic skier Picabo Street was "Baby Girl Street" due to a blank space left on her birth certificate, until a name was chosen. Many people left the hospital as "Baby boy Smith" or equivalent. Straight Dope says that anyone has the common law right to adopt whatever name they wish, without a formal court proceeding, as long as it is not an attempt to defraud someone. I return to the question: What suffix, if any, has Obama used on official documents? Edison (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your question, as well as your comparisons, have no relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand. Whatever may have been initially on Street's or any other "Baby Boy/Girl..." certificate was later amended when a name was chosen. Not so with Obama, who was, and remains, Barack Hussein Obama II". Unless anyone else has something relevant to add, I'd say this section can close up. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Left Handed

Barack Obama is left handed. Is that in the article? Its an interesting fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D1291 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but it's in Handedness of Presidents of the United States. Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 03:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's part of A Vast Left-Handed Conspiracy. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good one, Evb. Tvoz/talk 04:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been in and out of the article as long as I have paid attention. It seems to be on the borderline in most people's minds of whether it is worth mentioning or not. Isn't about 10-11% of the population left-handed? Most articles don't note that, it seems like trivia in a sense, but important to people for whom left-handedness is a serious issue. But guess what? Wikipedia has an article on the exact subject: Handedness of Presidents of the United States. So there's no chance it will ever be gone from the encyclopedia, whether it gets added here or not. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is that close bloodline connections to Obama who are past presidents, highly successful businessmen, other political figures and very famous celebrities, is considered too unimportant for Wikipedia to mention, while whether or not a president is left or right handed is considered important? Neurolanis (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because lots of Wikipedians are left-handed and everyone's desperately trying to find some personal connection with Obama these days. Flatterworld (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I've been told many times that Wikipedia is not interested in trivial facts...it's always interesting to see when Wikipedia's rules apply and when they don't. Neurolanis (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We list the close bloodlines, either here or in another article, but not the speculative and far-removed relationships. Left-handedness is to some people more than a triviality. See the article, Left-handedness. Wikidemon (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As is genealogy to others. But an article involving Obama's unusual bloodline connections was removed. You know, sometimes if the editors on Wikpedia remind me of the Borg; always agreeing with the collective decisions. Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or jeer. Neurolanis (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some people need to learn that just because their particular opinion on a matter gets rejected, that it doesn't mean that there's a vast conspiracy against them. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Other people need to open their eyes what is happening before them. Neurolanis (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

President Elect

Obama is not the President Elect and should not be noted as such. This should be removed until the electors meet and Obama is elected. Calling him the president elect perpetuates ignorance about the election process in the United States.Downzero (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see the extensive history of discussions on this topic in the talk page archive. There is not only legal precedent for referring to the winner of the general election as the President-elect, but with very few exceptions, the news media refer to him as such. Readers who want to learn the specifics about the term can go to the wikilinked President-elect article. --Good Damon 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review the discussions above (and if they're gone, the archive) for 20-30 topics on the exact same thing. There are some solid logical/legal reasons why a person may be known as the president elect after the popular election but before the electoral college - and admittedly a good counterargument. The deciding factor is that he is generally described as the President Elect by the reliable sources, so we do too. Words and terms mean what people intend them to mean, not always what they seem to mean by logical analysis or debate. Wikidemon (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no logical argument for referring to Obama as the President elect. He is not, and like I said, Wikipedia is perpetuating ignorance of our electoral process. He is described as president elect by similarly ignorant people who have a biased viewpoint, especially since Obama himself is referring to himself as the President Elect. Obama is not only NOT the president elect as of this date, but because he resigned his senate position, he is not even a currently serving member of the U.S. Government. He is, at best, a faculty member at the University of Chicago at this time and nothing else.

This should be removed. If I had the ability to edit it, I would not only remove it, but I would continue to visit this page until the electoral college casts their vote and makes Obama the president-elect.

If this discussion isn't enough, one need only follow the link to the wikipedia article on "president-elect" and read themselves. Obama is not the president elect, and those who have the power to edit this article have the power to clarify an incorrect point for those who search the encyclopedia. This entire discussion, semantic or not, is enough for the masses to be interested in learning more about this topic and now our electoral process works.

Personally, I'm just curious where the "Office of the President Elect" is located. But either way, this information should be removed, and protecting content so that incorrect information cannot be edited goes against the open source licensing and the philosophy of this web page. Those who have done so should remove this protection immediately. This entire topic is nothing more than biased and incorrect information that fails a simple smell test for political neutrality. Downzero (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Prez elect is recognised by this law. Quote from the act:

(c) 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.

Also for more information please see this discussion, one among many. Dr.K. (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The logical reason is quite simple. America had an election for president. He won the election. He is therefore president-elect. There are some formalities and technicalities, but any other result would set off a massive constitutional crisis. Claiming that in theory the electoral college could deny him the election is a matter of counting dancing angels on pinheads. It is not going to happen. Plus the legal reasoning that others have cited. Wikidemon (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a democracy. "Edit against consensus..." is asinine. The truth shall reign over any "consensus" that is incorrect. You are attempting to make the facts fit your position rather than coming to a conclusion based on the facts.

Until the electors cast their votes, nothing has changed. The popular vote isn't even binding in most states as to how the electors choose to vote. It is the responsiblity of everyone here at wikipedia to progress a neutral truth rather than an ideological lie, no matter how well-believed or intentioned.

If you think that Wikipedia's policies on how to create an encyclopedia are "asinine" then perhaps this is the wrong place. The verifiability policy has served us quite well, particularly in regards to reliable sourcing. Wikipedia is not the place to take a stand that most authorities are wrong and we should therefore go our own way to pursue the WP:TRUTH despite overwhelming opinion to the contrary. Wikidemon (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that I see you are edit warring on the subject I will state this in a slightly stronger way. On Wikipedia or elsewhere in life, should you perceive what you think is an absolute logical truth that most otherwise intelligent, sincere, capable people dispute, you would do well to first ask yourself where they are coming from and whether you are perhaps missing something rather than jumping to conclusions and taking a stand on the assumption that they are daft.Wikidemon (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

But he is legally recognised by the US government as President elect. This is verifiable information directly from the legal system of the United States, even if we discount all the mainstream media on the planet who call him also Prez elect. Please see also WP:V. The threshold here is verifiability not truth. Dr.K. (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reported the user to WP:ANI for disruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, Bugs thanks for the assistance. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Never said wikipedia's policies were asinine. You people are the ones violating the neutrality policy by continuing this debate when you are clearly wrong. The only "overwhelming opinion" would violate the U.S. Constitution which is clearly the final arbiter of this issue.

What you are expecting me to do is give validity which does not exist to a viewpoint that is biased and constitutionally incorrect. It appears that I'm not the only person who has taken this position, either, because your own link to the discussion finds precisely the same argument to the contrary, and the same "democratic" methods to hide from the truth.

Barack Obama is legally "recognized" by the U.S. government as the President-elect for one purpose and one purpose only--to procure funding for his office at this time to ease his transition into office. The supreme law of the land, aka, the U.S. Constitution, conclusively and clearly articulates the procedure for becoming President of the United States, and Obama has not yet reached this milestone, which requires a majority vote by the electoral college.

It is undeniable that barring any extreme circumstance, on December 15, 2008, Barack Obama will receive the number of electoral votes to become President Elect of the United States. Until that day, however, using a legal definition that does not go any farther than to provide funding for an office to verify a position that is incorrect is no more valid today than it was in 1963 when that law was written. It can be argued that until these results are verified, by the Congress, that he really isn't the President-Elect even then, but the reasoning for that position is much more cloudy and arbitrary. Right now, however, without a single electoral vote, there are few laws that bind electors, and the vote could, theoretically and legally, take a very different path than that which is expected. Downzero (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and the preponderance of reliable sources define our use of the term here. Every 4 years, a few on the losing side hold out the faint hope that somehow the electors will overturn the popular vote. It won't happen. The electors are party loyalists, not random individuals. Overturning the vote would cause a major, major constitutional crisis. The article already explains the technical side of the electoral vote. Obama is the President-elect. End of story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality is required of each and every article on Wikipedia. There is little doubt as to which way the electors will vote, but if they were to vote other than that of the American people, there is absolutely no legal recourse nor "constitutional crisis." Whoever gained the most electoral votes, whether it be Barack Obama or Mickey Mouse would become President of the United States. Of course, there would be a legal battle at both state level and Federal, but it is likely that all of the cases would be dismissed. Whoever gains the most electoral votes becomes the President-elect, and few laws bind electors. If you don't like this (and I can't say that I do, personally) then you should become a political activist and petition states to change their laws. Until then, no matter how outlandish and theoretical, a counterargument clearly exists for your position and thus the logic dissolves.

Obama is not the President-elect and this is empirical. Simply read the constitution and observe what happens on December 15th if you think Obama is the current president-elect. You will see that you are no more correct then than you were now.

The electoral vote is not a technicality. It is the constitutional process by which the President of the United States is elected. Reducing the discussion on the electoral college's importance to that of a mere technicality is precisely why this ignorance must be corrected for Wikipedia's integrity to be protected.Downzero (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no neutrality issue. The facts of the matter are fully covered in the articles. To make too big a thing of it beyond what's already covered would constitute undue weight. Obama is the President-elect. End of story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Does repeating that which is incorrect validate your position? You've brought forth no additional evidence to substantiate your position. It's still incorrect, no matter how many times you parrot it. It's obvious that there is a neutrality issue here. Downzero (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed here, at great length, since the night of the election. Which you would know, if you had read it. There is no neutrality issue. There is no issue at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I did read it. Your position is still one of bias that lacks reasoning. I have opened a dispute on this issue. The truth is far more important than the position of newspapers and weblogs. Downzero (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The "truth" in wikipedia is defined by verifiable sources and consensus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And represented by a neutral point of view. There exists clear evidence to meet the "verifiable" standard on both sides of this discussion. What lacks is neutrality in enforcing a position that violates the document that creates the rule of law in the United States. Without constitutionality, any law on this topic is meaningless.

This will have to be arbitrated if it comes to that. Nothing is served by having incorrect information on the wikipedia page of our next President. Downzero (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. There are no facts missing. The rules were followed. There is no issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, what's your opinion on whether the media have it right, that Obama and Biden have to resign as Senators by noon on January 20th? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't matter. Neither does yours. That's the entire point of this discussion. I don't have any vested interest in anything but the truth. What matters is the constitutional process and its implementation so that the American people are confident that our government is following the law. Downzero (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet you're arguing that your opinion should override verifiable sources and consensus about the term "President-elect". Meanwhile, what does the constitution have to say about whether the Senators have to resign? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. The Constitution of the United States and relevant case law ARE verifiable. You are the one claiming that my position is not verifiable, which is simple to counter as it clearly IS. This is a dispute of pragmatics vs. legal reasoning, not one of which position is articulated by the media, but rather whether something is factual when reported by media when countered by valid legal processes and sources. Absent the necessary legal reasoning, resorting to pragmatic use vs. legal fact is how your position is arrived.

I hope that a civil resolution can come whereby legal reasoning can be satisfied while still having a factual article on the subject. I'm afraid that will not be possible without a dispute involving others, and so this will continue until it can be arbitrated for future policies with respect to this issue. Downzero (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It was already resolved. You decided to start an edit war. And you violated the 1RR probation on this article, so you're risking being blocked just for that, let alone your disruptive behavior in general. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What happens to me is irrelevant to finding proper and legally-reasoned consensus on this issue for future participants. Downzero (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We've reasoned this through already and decided that siding with the near unanimity of the sources in calling Obama the "president-elect" is the most reasonable thing to do. Your point about technical correctness is duly noted, but does not seem apt. Wikidemon (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of technicality, but rather one regarding pragmatics vs. legal reasoning. I have opened a mediation case on this issue. Downzero (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears this dispute continues because you refuse to mediate it. The current "consensus" is contrary to the Wiki's own "president-elect" page, which perhaps warrants editing if the encyclopedia is going to redefine the term to suit its purposes. Downzero (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue "continues" only in your mind. It was already settled, you just don't want to accept it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

...the mediation will surely be closed as a content dispute. You are new here. You might take some time to learn the ropes rather than pick a fight with the many experienced editors who spend so much time on this. If you are indeed a lawyer don't think you are the only one here capable of legal reasoning. We've been through this a million times already. You are doing something akin to that inevitable torts class student who yells "but how can you put a value on human life" then runs out of the room in a huff. Please back down, and have the patience to learn rather than attack. Wikidemon (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Back down? Sorry, pal, I'm all for listening to other sides of the argument, but they have failed repeatedly to provide evidence. "Show me your evidence!" is not just a legal cry, but a cornerstone in the philosophy of science as well. Consensus is dynamic and subject to new evidence.

It is unfortunate that this issue has resorted to this. The position expressed on the page is not a neutral, factual representation, but rather a verifiable, biased source based on pragmatic usage which cannot be cited as such. It would be so much easier to make a section about the dispute surrounding the term and its use about Obama than having a discussion on a few words of one paragraph.

On December 15, 2008, this issue will become moot. Obama will become the president elect and we'll have nothing to talk about.

Until then, this has been an interesting and unsatisfying exchange because the other side refuses to provide evidence that concludes either way. Downzero (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, it's January 6th. And you're also wrong, in that the constitution does not define the term "President-elect". However, your arguing style continues to sound just like Zsero - who also had his facts wrong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The constitution does, however, define a procedure for electing a President, which involves the electoral college. I don't know anything about Zsero besides what I've read, but I did observe him trying to tell you the same thing that I am--that the constitution is binding and the point at which legal scholars define the president elect is either after the electoral vote or after Congress approves the votes. Either way, neither has been satisfied as of now. As I stated before, this is nothing more than pragmatics vs. legal reasoning and fact. Downzero (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "President-elect", which is not defined in the constitution, is being used in a totally pragmatic way. The electoral college is not going to overturn the will of the voters. So it is perfectly appropriate to call Obama the President-elect. And that's just what the sources do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should not be making assertions based on speculation and publishing accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downzero (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be based on reliable sources, and they say Obama is President-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution of the United States is the final word on anything requiring legal interpretation, not the news media. You're still wrong regardless of how you frame this. Downzero (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that the constitution is silent on the definition of "President-elect", so it doesn't figure into the discussion of the term "President-elect". The term is defined by common usage, and by law, to cover both the true electoral college winner and the "apparent" winner. You're creating an issue where there is none. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The constitution is also silent on free expression, but it hasn't stopped the courts from enforcing it. The relevant case law must be consulted to find the information, which, once again, comes down on my side and not yours.

The constitution defines the "President" and how he is to be elected. Case law and the historical record has demonstrated how this happens. The Constitution need not use the phrase "president elect" to define the process. Downzero (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, please review WP:V and WP:RS. The final word is the secondary sources, not the Constitution. We would look to reliable sources that interpret the Constitution, not make our own attempt to interpret it (a tricky thing that constitutes original research based on primary sources). I could make a fine argument why president-elect is correct but that is beside the point. That it is correct is demonstrated by the sourcing. To claim Obama is not President-elect, when every major news organization and almost every other source says he is, you are blowing against the wind. Arguing why is not terribly pertinent. This discussion really is not going anywhere. If you don't agree with the basic premise of Wikipedia sourcing there isn't much to be said. Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC)"President" and "President-elect" are two different terms. In this context, which the news media use, "President-elect" means the individual deemed to have won enough of the votes of the populations of individual states to win the necessary electors and secure the Presidency. The United States Constitution provides no definition of the term whatsoever, so it is up to popular usage to define it. There is no need to be absolutist in this, by the way. He is currently "President-elect" as defined by popular perception and the transition law. He will be "President-elect" as defined by the votes of the Electoral College come December 15th. He will be "President-elect" as defined by the ratification of those votes on January 6th. He will never be "President-elect" as defined by the Constitution, because, as I said, the Constitution is silent on the matter. --Good Damon 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There are at least three definitions for "president-elect" The first is the person elected by the electors from the several states and the District of Columbia. Depending on just how pedantic you want to be, that person will not be known until January 8, 2009, which is when Congress will assemble in joint session to count the votes. The second is the person apparent election winner, as certified by the GSA, for transition purposes. The final one is the person who everyone knows will be the winner of the electoral vote. That the media, and even President Bush, call Obama the "president-elect" is instructive here. -Rrius (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed for purposes - he's president-elect. This is a discussion that's going nowhere and supported by no-one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Zero made it clear on the Neutrality page that his issue is that Obama is not "entitled" to be called President-elect. That's a self-defining POV-push if ever I saw one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Really that's his problem not ours - attempts to forum-shop about this issue that has been settled in the normal way on the talk pages should be seen as disruptive. If we really wanted to do - we could provide over a thousand sources that name him as PE - that's all we need from our purposes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Good day, folks. Downzero (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care to participate anymore - this is an obvious issue and the discussion is not going anywhere. Let's let this go on another day or so as a courtesy if it has to but then close as rejected / no consensus. We should be more aggressive about closing repeat perennial proposals rather than letting them spin out of control. Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it not appropriate to also mention that there are pending cases in California and the US Supreme Court on if Electors may in fact vote for Barack Obama for PotUS? We will know more December 5th obviously but I was curious why this page was silent on the issues. --BenWoodruff 05:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWoodruff (talk • contribs)

Not if it's about that birth certificate nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

Yep, it's about that birth certificate nonsense, and it's already been discussed here. The page is silent on it because it's nonsense. Note the entry "Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter". That will be the epitaph of this conspiracy theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So the discussion on the 5th is nonsense? http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm This is not a conspiracy theory it is a question of law and as such is being presented to the SCOTUS. I do suppose it would be improper to include questions of constitutional law. --BenWoodruff 20:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWoodruff (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is abject nonsense. Being nonsense and being a court case are not mutually exclusive, you know. And some legal nonsense is even notable, e.g. the US vs. Satan case. But you will note that this case is not mentioned in the Wikipedia articles about either the United States or about Satan. This crackpot citizenship nonsense may someday rise to the level of being worth a curiosity article, but it is not worth mentioning in Obama's bio. Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone trying to post it here is doing so merely to try to lend some "legitimacy" to it. If the Supreme Court or anyone else decides in the plaintiffs' favor, then maybe it's worth a mention. Maybe. If there would anything to it, Limbaugh would have brought it up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi

I've removed this from the WP:3O list; there appear to be more than 2 editors involved, and it also appears that there is a clear consensus here.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Unverified Birth Hospital Needs Revision and Reference

This sentence needs revision; the hospital at which Obama was allegedly born has not been verified: "Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii,[1] to Ann Dunham, a white American from Wichita, Kansas[2] of mainly English, Irish and smaller amounts of German descent.[3][4][5]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.49.65 (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop reading conservapedia. It will poison your mind. It's a pack of lies. There is no issue whatsoever about Obama's citizenship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Verification of the hospital of birth requires inspection of Obama's birth certificate. Note the Certification of Live Birth on the Fightthesmears.com website is not a birth certificate, as it does not contain this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.49.65 (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You're raising a totally bogus issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The birth location of our next President is a bogus issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.49.65 (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If it were an issue, it would be on Limbaugh's front page. Is it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can prove Obama's birth location, then please provide it, so his page can be corrected.

All the sources I've seen say he was born in Hawaii. If you have evidence to the contrary, either post it here, or go back to your conservapedia fantasy world. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's hospital birth location cannot verified and should be removed from the page. You seem unwilling to discuss the facts surrounding his birth and I am unable to ascertain why you are behaving in this manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.49.65 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no issue of Obama's birth or citizenship, except in the minds of the conservapedia bozos. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And the reliable sources say he was born in Hawaii, so your claim, that it cannot be verified, is a bogus claim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And why are you unwilling to confront the fact that no reliable conservative source has seriously raised any doubts about Obama's citizenship? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's birth hospital location has not been verified for his Wikipedia page. To be born in Hawaii, he must have been born somewhere in particular. Specifically, where was that? We need a source for the Wikipedia page. Do you have a source, such as his original birth certificate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.7.198 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't think the sourcing is adequate, what's stopping you from improving it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The purpose of the Talk page is to discuss edits before they are made. As you get more experience on Wikipedia, you'll discover this. Just ask someone for help if you are not sure what you should be doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.7.198 (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty of experience here, so I assume you're talking to that other IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of lecturing others about experience, when are you going to start signing your posts? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the name of the hospital in Hawaii at which Barack Obama was born? That is the question seemingly without a verifiable answer. You seem to want to discuss anything but the specific location at which Obama was born. Why? Is that what an experience Wikipedian would do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.7.198 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

An experienced wikipedian would (1) sign his posts, which you refuse to do; and (2) stop asking others to do your work for you, and start doing the work yourself, which you also refuse to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The citation states the name of the hospital. [7] If you have evidence to the contrary, either present it here, or go away and find it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]Reliable sources say Obama was born in Hawai'i. No reliable sources say he was born anywhere else. If you don't like it, I challenge you to go change the policy that specifies the importance of reliable sources. Otherwise, conservapedia is thada way --> Thank you, goodnight, I'm here all week, tip your waitresses, show's over folks, you don't have to go home but you can't stay here. L'Aquatique[talk] 09:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

*Applause* Good show. Neuro√Logic 09:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"And dat's de end!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Awwwww and I was just popping the pop corn?! ;P Brothejr (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

All is not lost. The IP might turn up again and argue about whether the island has an apostrophe in its name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The only island I've been to in that chain is Humuhumunukunukuapua'a'a'a Island. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you must be aware that the Humu(etc.) is not an island but a fish. Check out your collection of Andrews Sisters 78s. PhGustaf (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew he was old. But not that old. Dr.K. (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

For further info, see Wackiki Wabbit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, you shouldn't have. Now everyone knows your background and how old you are. I appreciate the gesture though. Thanks. :D Dr.K. (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The IP is becoming annoying. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Baseball Bugs, Hawaii does have an apostrophe in its name, albeit in the native Hawaiian language. It is named "Mokuʻāina o Hawaiʻi." SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii

Item next; I am a newby here and I still admit it. Frankly, I don't know how to handle HTML to save my life. And if there's a way to mess up the "idiot-proof," I'll find it. Having said that, I do need to point out that, for me personally, name-calling does not make points with me ... nor does it make a point for me. Calling somebody a 'bozo' does not seem to me to be the hallmark of a person who is comporting him/herself to the standards of what a Wikipedian (which we should all be) should. At this point, and for other people who call others names, I must ask that you please refrain. We're all adults here, or at least should be.

One of the hallmarks of maturity is to respect the opinions and beliefs of others even when they differ from your own. Sen. Al Simpson once said "Problems won't be solved without talking about them in depth and passion. Let's not make some joke of the Bill of Rights. Let's make so certain that we listen to all viewpoints, especially those with which we strongly disagree." (Emphasis mine.)

And in closing, I'm going to quote from something Mike Wiseman told me. "If it ain't fun, it ain't worth doing." And "If you're not going to adhere to all of the standards which are expected of you, I must question whether or not you should move on."

In my opinion, Wikipedians should be impartial, adult, mature, and above all unbiased (which goes right back to impartial.) This applies to both conservatives and liberals. Indeed, Wikipedia should have neither. We should be neutral. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but I don't think I am.

Comments? --Dr. Entropy (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it would be ideal to handle every situation with proper maturity and decorum, some of the evident frustration with conspiracy theorists is understandable. This article and talk page has suffered from a constant barrage of those holding far-flung, often bizarre beliefs - and often promoting them with a doggedness and urgency that disrupts the page and wastes a tremendous amount of time until they are finally blocked from editing or give up. Among those, the theory (promoted fairly heavily by some conservative operatives before the election) that Obama is not a natural born US citizen is one of the more persistent and ridiculous. It is demonstrably untrue. It has been thoroughly debunked, and the debunking is linked to and put in the FAQ, I believe. Yet people have been bringing this up on the talk page perhaps twice per day for the past few months, sometimes edit warring on the main article, or here when their new thread is shut down. They are either too lazy, sloppy, or inexperienced to notice that it has already been discussed to death, and many are completely unfazed and want the whole discussion repeated to their satisfaction when this is pointed out, but it generally does no good because they are immune to Wikipedia's notions of evidence, reliable sourcing, consensus, and so on. I'm not sure what the best approach is. Probably just closing this discussion on sight whenever it appears or, as in this case, allowing a single discussion to stand every once in a while so people get it out of their system. Wikipedia talk pages like this are not an open free speech forum where everyone can debate to their heart's content. They are a place for discussion reasonably aimed at improving the article. That's just not going to happen with this or any discussion about the legitimacy of Obama's birth cerficiate, citizenship, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am neutral when it comes to facts, but that doesn't mean I tolerate vandalism and Wikipedia tagging (in the sense of graffiti taggers). Good faith is required to participate here, and anyone refusing to review the FAQ but attempting only to provoke response (particularly with unsigned posts) is not showing good faith. Our time contributing to Wikipedia is worth infintely more than their time trying to compromise and destroy it. I agree with Wikidemon. Once an urban legend has been thoroughly debunked, there's no reason fur us to waste time rediscussing it ad infinitum just because someone (anonymously) tries to goad us into wasting time expliaing it. Anyone who asks like a toddler should be treated like one (given a time out on the naughty step). Flatterworld (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with the IP user in believing that the article requires more valid sources as to Obama's birthplace as it seems to be pretty well established that it is Hawaii, I would suggests a much less abrasive, uncivil way of handling the situation Baseball Bugs. Comments like "You need to stop reading conservapedia", "You're raising a totally bogus issue", "Because there is no issue of Obama's birth or citizenship, except in the minds of the conservapedia bozos" were totally uncalled-for. The IP user has a right to address whatever concerns he may have over the article without being attacked for it. 65.31.103.28 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as to the manner of handling this issue. The IP is correct in arguing that we need a reliable source as to the specific hospital where Obama was born. Existing sources are sufficient as to the issue of the geographical location of his birth (Hawaii). Sorry, I missed the mention of the hospital in the WashPost article we have as a source. That should suffice. --Tkynerd (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The IP address is asking questions that have already been answered. Hence he appears to be trolling, and is treated as such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So you use a media article for a source of Obama's birthplace? No wonder Wikipedia is not considered a valid documentation source. You need a valid birth certificate, which you don't have since Obama will not allow anyone to see it. There is no valid documentation released that says he was born in Hawai'i. mystynight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystynight (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't need a birth certificate. In fact a reliable secondary source is better. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. And there is no issue in any case. It's KKKonservapedia progaganda. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The published birth certificate is valid, according to spokesfolks for the State of Hawai'i. Please give this much abused and overworked matter a rest. PhGustaf (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the published birth certificate on fightthesmears.com, you are mistaken. That is not a birth certificate even in the State of Hawaii, but a Certification of Live Birth, which may or may not be accepted from State to State as a birth certificate. Presenting an actual birth certificate is required to establish identity for issuance of a passport and a host of other security clearances. Obama refuses to provide such verification of his identity, presumably because he does not wish his veracity of his past statements about his questionable U.S. Citizenship to be challenged. Hence, Obama is unfit to take the oath of office because he refuses to uphold the U.S. Consitution, which must he wear that he will uphold. Of course, this last point is why this all matters to people who understand the U.S. Constitution.

If it's not a problem for Limbaugh, it's not a problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. Obama birth's place in Hawaii has not been verified. It should not be referenced in Wikipedia, except as being unknown. The broader implication is if he has no birth location in Hawaii, then he was not born in Hawaii for purposes of intepretation of the U.S. Constitution. If Obama is elected and sworn in as U.S. President, without proving his natural born status as a U.S. Citizen, known of his actions will be lawful. This unconstitutional presidency could touch off hundreds of lawsuits and result in Obama being impeached. Of course, this is speculative, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to record veriable information, and Obama's birthplace is unknown, perhaps in Hawaii.

I don't get the whole Limbaugh writing by Baseball bugs. Anyways, to the above IP address, I respectfully ask that you please remember to sign your posts by writing ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ). I think this issue is closed as per the number of editors who have disagreed with you. I do apologize, however, if you feel you feel that your concerns have went unmet, but I think you'd be better off just moving on. Cheers! :) 65.31.103.28 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh is as outspoken an opponent of Obama as there is. If he doesn't have an issue about the birth certificate, then there can't be anything to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Can this thread be ended? Do the conspiracy kooks really deserve this much forum? This horse is glue! Move on! --Tom 22:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to close it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I marked it resolved. So this talk page will never ever ever bring up the issue of where Obama was born, correct? I am also wishing for World peace for my Xmas gift :) --Tom 22:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Careful what you wish for. In The Lathe of Heaven (and probably other stories), world peace was achieved through anihilation of the entire human race. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In future, you might want to refer people to this sub-article section where someone (not me) decided to cover the subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, "Hawaiʻi" contains an ʻokina, not an apostrophe. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I marked the issue as not resolved.

I think I just messed something up. It had been marked as resolved and now it's not? I think I messed up, but in looking at the history I don't see my name or IP has having made the change. Maybe I didn't. I dunno.

In any event, thank you for the correction, Bigbluefish. I didn't know what that was called. :)

Happy trails! --Dr. Entropy (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is manually archived to put an end to disruption. Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

He's Multi-Racial.

Not to be rude or anything, but Obama is Mulatto if anything. You editors are misleading the people who read this. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.188.108.125 (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not misleading anyone. We report what reliable sources say of Obama. If anyone is guilty of misleading our readership, it's those who write the newspapers etc. I suggest that you direct your complaints to their editors. If and when they change how they describe Obama, we will report that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due deference to WP:OR: if WP is not a newspaper, as WPns are fond of proclaiming, surely it's more than just a digest of newspaper reports? Mixed race, its perception and nomenclature etc. are all complex subjects -- as the IP's comment shows. — Writegeist (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

All true... which is why this article goes into detail concerning Obama's ethnic background. It's already there, just not in the lead of the article. --Good Damon 02:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yebbut, the first sentence of the lead (apologies to the champions of "lede") refers to him as an African American. Isn't that the IP's point? That "African American" is not strictly accurate? And that as an encyclopedia we should do better? Or are mixed-race Americans always labelled by the ethnic origin of the darker-complexioned parent? Just asking. Would or would it not be pc to describe him as the first non-white president-elect? — Writegeist (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama identifies himself as black. So it's not Wikipedia or the newspapers that have arbitrarily chosen the ethnicity of the "darker-complexioned parent." There are many Italian Americans, Irish Americans, etc., that are half, or even three-quarters something else, but who choose to identify themselves that way. I think people of mixed descent have the privilege to do that without it being questioned. 67.150.245.59 (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Are the terms Black and African-American synonymous with each other? (78.150.77.147 (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

I didn't mean to draw any kind of distinction between the two words. When used in reference to Americans, I think they have the same meaning. But my guess is that the choice of one or the other often depends on extralinguistic factors. I prefer "African American" here. 67.150.245.59 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this IP's Italian- and Irish-Americans are irrelevant to the question of the accuracy of WP's indication of Obama's racial identity. For all that some "Italian Americans" and "Irish-Americans" who are, in fact, neither predominantly Italian nor Irish may choose to romanticize their racial identities for whatever reason, this should not be taken as a precedent to legitimize our misrepresenting the racial identity of a major political figure in his encyclopedia entry. Neither, if Barack Obama chooses to describe himself as "African American", is this a reason to perpetuate the erroneous description in his BLP if it is, indeed, erroneous. It is clear that he is no more authentically "African American" than an American whose mother, say, is Italian and father Chinese is "Italian American." Should we knowingly lie in support of Obama's chosen form of words regardless of their accuracy? I think not. I think we should look for an accurate and neutral form of words. To my way of thinking, "the first non-white (or non-Caucasian or whatever) president-elect" appears both innocuous and factually correct. If it isn't, might there not be another form of words that attains the twin objectives? — Writegeist (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How so? You say "It is clear that he is no more authentically 'African American' than an American whose mother, say, is Italian and father Chinese is 'Italian American.'" which is rather silly an assertion. His mother is American (caucasian) and his father is African (black) and the compound hyphenated word using both is quite accurate, both technically as well as sociologically since he is perceived as an African-American black man within society. This entire debate has spun out into absurd lengths. Barack Obama who just was elected to be the 44th President is an African-African black man. To state it otherwise is linguistic/intellectual masturbation writ large. Lestatdelc (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know who is handing down from on high these "factually accurate" descriptions. Race/identity is a very complicated subject and definitions vary from country to country. The Irish-American comparisons are particularly apt here because of differing attitudes about who is and isn't Irish - see the article Plastic Paddy for one. The terminology used in this field is defined by a combination of usage by a) people who are identifying themselves as such; b) the same-said people identifying others as being the same as themselves; and c) wider society using (maybe even imposing) the term onto a generic description. It is not set down by rigid scientific/legal formulas. And the usage does encompass those with mixed ancestry - as I have repeatedly pointed out, Obama is as African American as many other "first African American to achieve a certain political post"s, including Hiram Rhodes Revels, P. B. S. Pinchback, Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The cited politicos are indeed termed African American in their WP BLPs even though they are, in fact, only partially so. The racial identity of people who are part-white and self-evidently part-black seems to be changeable according to prevalent social pressures from both within and outside the "African American" population. And the description appears to be more acceptable to Americans than to Europeans, per this extract from the WP article on African Americans:

In the 1980s, parents of mixed-race children began to organize and lobby for the addition of a more inclusive term of racial designation [i.e. other than African American] that would reflect the heritage of their children. When the U.S. government proposed the addition of the category of "bi-racial" or "multiracial" in 1988, the response from the public was mostly negative. Some African American organizations, and African American leaders such as Senator Diane Watson and Representative Augustus Hawkins, were particularly vocal in their rejection of the category, fearing massive defection from the African American self-designation. This reaction is characterized as "historical irony" by Daniel (2002), seeing that the massive increase of multiracial couples and children was a direct consequence of the abolition of the anti-miscegenation laws, which was a major victory achieved by the African American civil rights movement of the 1950s to 1960s.^[1]
In recent decades, the multicultural climate of the United States has continued to expand. Although the terms mixed-race, biracial, and multiracial are increasingly used, it remains common for those who possess any visible traits of black heritage to identify or be identified solely as blacks or African Americans. As well, it is very common in the United States for people of mixed ancestry possessing any recent black heritage to self-identify demographically as African American while acknowledging both their African-American and other cultural heritages socially. (Emphasis added.)

For example, 55% of European Americans classify Senator Barack Obama as biracial when they are told that he has a white mother, while 66% of African Americans consider him black.^[2] Obama describes himself as black^[3] and African American, using both terms interchangeably,^[4] and is generally considered to be African American.^[5] (Emphasis added.)

Interesting figures, although it would be interesting to know how many of the 'African Americans' in this survey themselves had at least one white grandparent, and how many had an African-born grandparent. Also, where any Asian-Americans surveyed, and what about those who identify as Hispanic or Italian-American (for example)? I still feel that Obama is disrespecting his white family (who actually raised him) by identifying solely as black - the one-drop rule is gone and people are more and more aware that their ancestry may be more complex than 'white' or 'black'--MartinUK (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I am not sure whether it is correct to bow to the American socio-political pressure evident in the fact that the subjects of the BLPs cited by Pickering are described as "African American", even though the description is palpably a half-truth at best. Is WP an American or a global information resource? — Writegeist (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

However you cut it, Obama is the first American president elect of African descent. It's 100% true, not half true, partly true, or anything else, to say that by the American conception of race Obama is African-American. This is backed up by the vast majority of published sources, and his own self-description. While conceptions of race in the rest of the world are interesting, they aren't particularly germane to the historical importance of America electing its first president who is by America's conception African-American. Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

... oh, and please do read the FAQ, which you can expand above, regarding calling him the first African-American. This discussion gets repeated twice a day or so. Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer African American to non-white. I think it's more relevant to say what he is than what he is not. I strongly disagree with Writegeist's assertion that "African American" is a false description of Obama. Here we are faced with a choice between several true characterizations of Obama: "African-American," "black," "of mixed race," and "non-white," of which "non-white" is the most debatable. Writing an encyclopedia article is not a mechanical exercise; choices need to be made between true statements. These choices will depend on editors' appreciation of what's most relevant. In cases of disagreement, it's also good to see what outside sources do most often. Disagreements about the appropriate emphasis to give to different facts should not devolve into one side saying that the other side is making false statements. 67.150.252.248 (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

With a term that is an American social construct it is natural to follow American usage. It is not American-centric - biographies from other countries follow the usages for race there. The former UK Member of Parliament Jonathan Sayeed is sometimes described as "Anglo-Indian" or "half-Indian" or "British Asian" but he himself doesn't use the terms and virtually never appears on lists of ethnic minority MPs. (We do, however, more widely follow British usage in that "an Asian person" is normally only applied to those with ancestry rooted in south Asia, when referring to British Asians.) Nor will you find George IV of the United Kingdom or William IV of the United Kingdom called "black" (and that term is not taboo here) even though their mother, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, is sometimes claimed to have African ancestry - see Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz#Claims of African ancestry and her inclusion on the list of 100 Great Black Britons (and that list includes multi-racial people on it). Even if she did have African ancestry, British usage is not on a "one-drop rule". We similarly don't apply the "if your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent was Irish then you are" formula to British biographies - once again this is in line with general British usage. And similarly we follow American usage for Americans. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Poor porphyric George the Hundred and Eleventh's wife is irrelevant here. Obviously the odd suggestion of African ancestry is insufficient for her to be called black. (And anyway the "black queen" fiction is given no credence by serious historians.) Whereas Obama's Kenyan paternity is not the subject of speculation. It's a fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the people who drew up the 100 Great Black Britons. But British usage of these terms is different (more notably seen with Irish descent hence fewer Plastic Paddies) which is the key point. (And what's this "hundred and eleventh" rubbish about?) Timrollpickering (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's in WP doesn't mean it's true. Come to think of it, there's a good chance that--as in the case of the Queen Charlotte calumny--it means it's "rubbish", as you might say. Which reminds me: George III. The picture The Madness of King George (it's about the monarch of the Septic Isle, not the 43rd president of the Untied States) was originally titled The Madness of George III but, according to one story, American preview audiences read it as George the Hundred and Eleventh so it had to be changed. Sorry, I thought everyone knew that. And if it's not in WP, it could be true! — Writegeist (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The urban myth always told is that Americans thought that "III" meant the film was a sequel to two they'd never seen or heard of. Not that they thought "III" meant 111! But the play never had a problem when it ran in the US and the director has confirmed that the reason was because Americans didn't automatically realise the film was about a king, but the name change was made from the start and used in all markets. [8] (Whereas Mrs. Brown was only "Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown" in the US.) Anyway the point lost in all this is that no-one has ever claimed the royals from George IV onwards as being "black", in spite of Queen Charlotte being so, because British usage has never been on a one drop basis. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sequel story is one -- which made it into WP and is evidently, therefore, a myth. The number story is another. (There may be more. Please note I took the trouble to say "according to one story".) Apparently the number story doesn't appear in WP. So, yup: it's probably true. I note that in support of a fixation on British usage whereby, gosh, white monarchs are not called black, the Charlotte canard is once again peddled as fact. — Writegeist (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been clearer that I meant those who do claim Charlotte as black don't claim the Royals from that point on (and as a lot of George III's descendants married one another some of the "one drop diluted" effect would be limited) when the opportunity to do so would be tempting. All this has diverted from the ultimate point that we should respect the conventions for race in each society, not try to impose different terms or use anti-"American centric" sentiment as a reason for trying to rewrite the definition of African American, which you call just a "half-truth". Timrollpickering (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To WP's American readership the description may well have truthiness. But not to readers who—hard to believe, I know, but nevertheless this is verifiable by reliable sources—exist in fairly large quantities outside America. Hence the problem with the Americacentric form of words. Thank you for clearing up the Charlotte-line misunderstanding. — Writegeist (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He's just as white as he is black. Get over it. Ironmagma (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama should be described as multi-racial black person.Pisharov (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's race

Wikipedia is not here to promote racial equality or usher in the American form of Brazil's caste system. We are here to report things as they are. Obama is the first president to have African ancestry and thus is the first black president by the standards of Wiki. Of course this is disputed and we cover this in several or so articles. We even put in him in the category for people of mixed african-european ancestry. So please let's stop this debate because it's moot. YVNP (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The first President (they have to be American) so how about the first Euro/African President.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:No original research and then - assuming you find reliable sources calling him Euro/African - please read our policy on undue weight. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He has been called multiracial. But he is the first president to have any african ancestry with proof of that ancestry. He has white ancestry yes and therefore he is also a white president. Why is it so important to say he's mixed rather than claiming both sides? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 05:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is greater than the issue of President Elect Obama...it appears that 'black or white' thinking has been programmed into North America...to label this President as the first 'black President' is partly true, but not the truth of the mater; his mother was a PHD white women who taught at a University....

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. Obama is mixed race, not 100% black. If you are going to mention race, be truthful. It is misleading to do otherwise. Obama is also not the first elected to president with black ancestry. Five presidents had black ancestry...Lincoln, Jefferson, Jackson, Coolidge, and Harding. mystynight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.115.24 (talk)

Unfortunately, there is no factual evidence or legitimate historical basis for such a claim. Tarc (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Harding is pretty likely, but the others are dubious at best. But I'nm sorry so many people have trouble acknowledging that Obama is half-white - and that the support of his white family (and his Indonesian stepfather to an extent) are what gained him the opportunities which allowed him to attend Harvard and become a lawyer, let alone to become President. Obama calling himself African-American was for socio-political reasons, taken while he struggled to find an identity due to the inevitable confusion caused by his background and chaotic childhood--MartinUK (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're making assumptions that don't pan out. Obama is not denying his white parentage to try to get ahead in life - he, like nearly all others in America who are half white and half black, considers himself African American as a matter of course because that's what he is by America's conception of race. That is not denying white ancestry at all. People can be AA and mixed race at the same time. Actually, "half white" is perhaps a bit offensive to people - it makes it sound like dog breeding, the idea that with one parent of one race and another of another race one is some kind of half and half assemblage rather than an integrated whole person (100% African American, 100% biracial). Wikidemon (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Obama self-identifying as African American: he is entitled to make that decision for whatever reasons he likes, and this is not the place to speculate about or judge them. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

To the poster questioning the black ancestry of previous presidents, this is documented by professional genealogists. Perhaps you should look into that as I have. Obama can call himself anything he wants, but that doesn't make it factual. mystynight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystynight (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC) The preceding post has been edited to remove unconstructive and unsourced allegations about a living person. As I said above, this is not the place. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

^ G. Reginald Daniel (2002). "More Than Black?:Multiracial". Temple University Press. Retrieved 2008-09-19. p. 128f.
^ "Williams/Zogby Poll: Americans' Attitudes Changing Towards Multiracial Candidates". BBSNews.com. 2006-12-22. Retrieved 2007-09-23.
^ Shades of black By Eric Deggans. St. Petersburg Times. Published April 15, 2007
^ "Transcript excerpt: Senator Barack Obama on Sixty Minutes". CBS News. 2007=02-11. Retrieved 2008-01-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ "Breaking New Ground: African American Senators". U.S. Senate Historical Office. Retrieved 2007-07-22.

[sad-1] G. Reginald Daniel (2002). "More Than Black?:Multiracial". Temple University Press. Retrieved 2008-09-19. p. 128f.

[2] "Williams/Zogby Poll: Americans' Attitudes Changing Towards Multiracial Candidates". BBSNews.com. 2006-12-22. Retrieved 2007-09-23.

[3] Shades of black By Eric Deggans. St. Petersburg Times. Published April 15, 2007

[Obama60minutes-4] "Transcript excerpt: Senator Barack Obama on Sixty Minutes". CBS News. 2007=02-11. Retrieved 2008-01-29. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[5] "Breaking New Ground: African American Senators". U.S. Senate Historical Office. Retrieved 2007-07-22.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]