Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:28, 14 October 2009

Click to manually purge the article's cache

Template:Community article probation

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

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

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Barack Obama. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Barack Obama at the Reference desk.

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Template:USP-Article United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Columbia University Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indonesia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Kenya Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Template:WPCD-People Energy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

Archives

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

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

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

Ethnicity in first sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it' been moved to the end of the lede, which I'm okay with too. Either way is fine. I cleaned it up a bit to remove extra wording - "the first president" doesn't need to be repeated, "hail from" is informal, "of African American descent" should simply be African American. I've also taken the liberty of removing the true and important, but relatively less important, factoid, that he was the first major party AA nominee. There were so many firsts that came so quickly - first viable candidate, first to win any primaries, etc., which are all overshadowed so quickly by the one that really matters, that he was elected and then inaugurated as president. I think that one mention is enough. Wikidemon (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in no way disagreeing with anyone's input on this article about noting Obama's race in the first sentence. However, considering the history of the black race, the moment he was elected president was a huge stepping stone. Although at the same time, he is not fully "African American". He is mulatto (black and white). Therefore if he is going to be introduced as a certain race, it should be correct; just because he is half black, does not mean that he is our first African American president! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browncc (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Spoken Word on this article.

The spoken word audio on this article is out-dated and phrased back to when Obama was still running for Presidency, last year. I suggest we take the audio off until someone makes a new one. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 14:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We should create an "audio tzar" to take care of that pronto.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Add "first green president"?

Add "first green president"? http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/media/galleries/obama_green_policies.html unsigned comment by 99.155.155.17 (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No objective way of measuring same, so no.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is not exactly a neutral, reliable source, and I could probably find more (and better quality) sources referring to Teddy Roosevelt as the first "green" POTUS. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama failed his presentation for olympic games

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/02/olympics.2016/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.13 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, too bad for people who were hoping the Olympics would be in Chicago; good news for sports fans in Brazil! Although sourceable and noteworthy I don't think the President's unsuccessful stumping for the Olympics is a significant enough event to add to this article, which focuses on his entire life. It might belong somewhere else in the encyclopedia though. Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

At very least, I assume it should be/is mentioned in articles about the 2016 Olympics themselves. But indeed, per Wikidemon, this is not anything close to a major life event for Obama, and this isn't the article for it. LotLE×talk 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

`Completely agree. Tvoz/talk 19:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has been, very successfully I might add, been downsized to just the nuts and bolts. Bravo. Yet there seems to be a growing number of articles that seem to mention Obama, whenever possible. Even when the connection is not notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent our plan is working!!! muhahah, the world will only know of obamas political gains and not his losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.59.134 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you twist it, the Olympics is not a political loss. Grsz 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But, folks, I'd ask you to reconsider the notability quotient by answering the question of how many times before has a president traveled on Air Force One half way around the world to directly address the IOC immediately before the selection? Surely that helps to make this as notable as a speech regarding Islamic-American relations? QueenofBattle (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now lets remove the politics from this topic for a moment. If you remove the political implications, innuendos, and hyper-partisanship you will find that there is not much here other then he went to the IOC to make a bid for the games along with the national leaders of the other three bidding cities and the Chicago bid was not the one that won. The best would be a mention in the page written for the Chicago bid or some related page, not in this summary style article. Brothejr (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow you guys took my quote way to seriously... I was trying to illustrate how absurd you sound by trying to make out a right-wing conspiracy.

Not all people who agree with certain historical aspects of this vote R.....or even a D for that matter. hence some may not even be American. The IOC decision was a great conversation peace between my friend in Romania(who doesn't vote here) and myself(who protests voting R...and D)....

The point is if you only post political accomplishments, future anthropology will see a person flawless and almost of high stature. This is far from the truth. Its historical fact he lost the bid. Its also historical fact that this had a large political implications on the part of Chicago.... last I checked his profession is politics. So even if it makes you fell uncomfortable about his loss, It still happened. Because "you" feel its not relevant to history doesn't mean you erase form history. When an encyclopedia contains information not relevant to your research... you skip reading that part. its up to the user. It is data and information plan and simple, And like it or not its a topic of political debate, and that's part of his history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.59.134 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It was Chicago's Olympics bid, not Obama's. If you follow the most recent sources it appears that the decision may have been made on other political grounds before Obama's trip so it was a foregone conclusion. The President stumps for lots of things and rarely acts alone. Some succeed, some don't. Here, although the issue is of moderate importance (more important than some issues, far less important than the auto and bank bailouts, economic stimulus, health care, etc), Obama's connection to it is not especially strong. Although the information belongs somewhere in the encyclopedia, and probably is here already, this summary article simply doesn't have the room to list every moderately important national issue that Obama has a relatively weak connection with. I have no strong feeling about whether dealing with Arab/Muslim - US relations should be in the article or not, and it can be tricky to compare one issue to another. That one is arguably a more prominent, longer-lasting issue that is more fully within the president's purview. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama went to Denmark, not Chicago. If the mayor had been the man on point and went all the way over to Denmark on tax payer dime then I would say this would belong under the mayors bio.

Yes, it's good to keep things balanced (although anthropology tends to make up for oversimplistic appraisals over time; consider the significant opposition to the original affluent society hypothesis), but this is a biographical article, and Obama's Olympics bid does not seem to be a particularly defining element of Obama as a biographical entity. Indeed, it is sort of predictable that a president from Chicago would be pleased if the Olympics were to occur there; and it is even more predictable (in fact, it is a statistical certainty) that, whenever there are more than two candidates, out of which only one will (fairly) win, the odds are against any individual candidate. Perhaps his interest in the Olympics deserves a blurb in Presidency of Barack Obama, but it's not even a particularly sensational aspect of his presidency, while it might have been so had his city overcome the odds and won the bid. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed. obama did not only root for chicago...he went personally to denmark. Also he is the first president to do that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiappend (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the fact he went to lobby for it...and failed to get the award. then skip that part. let others read it. The fact that this is even an issue that's being discussed so much proves its a fact of some level of importance... the debate is not wiki worthy.. but the fact that he went is because there is a debate. a hundred years form now someone will say Obama lost his bid for Chicago... how would average Joe be able to prove or disprove him(or claiming to spread false right-wing FUD).... simple ..wiki and cite that Obama lobbied and lost the IOC nomination. showing only the facts that are relevant to your interests does not make a fare article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiappend (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Friends in college

Joker Poster up for deletion

I nominated the image of the "Obama Joker Poster" (not the article on it) for deletion. If you are interested please check out Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 October 4.Borock (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Travels to Pakistan

Curious. In his different books he mentions travel to Pakistan during his College years and that helped him understand that part of the world. Why no mention in Wiki article? Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's important, add it and cite it. Say why it's relevant. Be bold; it may stay, or it may end up being removed. Falconus 00:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Third president from Illinois . . .counting how?

The article says Obama is the third president from Illinois.

I embellished that a bit by mentioning that the first two were Lincoln and Reagan (interesting facts vis-a-vis Obama). Reagan was elected as a Californian, but was born in Illinois (Tampico). Lincoln was elected as an Illinoisan, but was born in Kentucky.

User DKqwerty removed my edit, explaining that since Lincoln wasn't born in Illinois, he shouldn't be considered as being a president from Illinois. Yeah, OK. Ahem - Obama was born in Hawaii - why is the article saying that HE is a president from Illinois then? Further - Lincoln, like Obama, was a US Senator from Illinois when he was elected!

Since there have been no presidents both born in Illinois and elected out of Illinois, maybe there has been NO president from Illinois!

Given that, what does 'third president from Illinois' mean?

Manburger 486 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, where a president is considered to be from is based on where he was elected from. Because of this, Lincoln and Obama are both considered to be from Illinois, but Reagan is actually considered to be from California. Not sure why it says that Obama is the third president from Illinois. He is generally considered to be the second. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant was elected from Illinois. He lived in Galena, Illinois following the civil war. Deserted Cities (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Deserted Cities, Your elected from the state in which you reside. Only Grant an Obama fit this description. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I said "by that logic", as in, "I'm following your logic to its natural conclusion" not "this is my opinion". If the criteria is where the President was born, then Lincoln fails this; If the criteria is where the President was elected from, then both Grant and Reagan fail. That was my only point.

For those interested: I agree that the criteria should be from what state a President was elected, not the state of their birth. DKqwerty (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I took the "n'th President from Illinois" line out entirely. I suggest it not be put back. It's not a big deal exactly, and leads to too many trivial squabbles. PhGustaf (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, Lincoln was not a Senator and, in fact, was never a Senator, at that time nor at any other time. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get an agreement not to edit war over any claim about being from Illinois, and to leave it out until there is consensus? The article was fully protected due to this squabbling, which is not really tenable. Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, where are the FARC clowns? Grsz 04:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Democraplypse, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Lincoln was living in Springfield, IL when he was elected. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Illinois is powerful. Else we wouldn't still have such awkward currency as Lincoln dollar notes and Lincoln pennies. Even the Canadians have gotten beyond that. My suggestion is that it's not really important whether Obama is the second or fourth President to hail from Illinois, and that it's best to just let the matter be. PhGustaf (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tad, Im sorry I forget to account for your fathers state of residency, Nevermind then, Lincoln, Grant and Obama, My bad, sorry. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So Fantastic Article

Nobel Peace Prize winner

President Barack Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize --Josecarlos1991 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's now in the lead and has its own section - though reactions to it need to be added as they come to light. SGGH 09:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

...he'll be asleep at the moment, wont he? SGGH 09:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We will probably need an own article for reactions and other stuff related to his Nobel Peace Prize. Pantherskin (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in the lead because it is a major honor (though I am personally incredulous) and probably the fact and a couple of pro and con reactions from major figures once they wake up. And start its own article. What about Public reaction to Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize? And what are they Storting in Oslo?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Stortinget (the Norwegian Parliament) appoints the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which selects the Laureate for the Peace Prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.17.193 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am making a pun on "snorting".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not disregard "public reaction" and have a main article that can contain much of the information, include the public reaction? SGGH 09:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think including public reaction is a good title. Steven Walling 09:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a similar example we can model the title after? If not, maybe Award of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama would be an idea if we don't want public reaction in the title. Either way, no doubt the Birthers will be saying it is the first Kenyan to win it ...--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Public reaction still makes more sense to me. People will naturally confuse the verb and noun use of award. I also think having it focus on the uproar which is bound to ensue due to all the controversy around him makes the article look less like a case of recentism and more like it's deserved because of his unique place in history. Steven Walling 09:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just have a 2009 Nobel Peace Prize article that can also contain information about other potential candidates, besides the public reaction, prize citation, Obama's acceptance speech, future impact etc. ? Abecedare (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

{editprotectedarticle} The article says that he is only the second president to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. He is actually the fourth after: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. {/editprotectedarticle} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.204.101 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've tweaked the lede to "On October 9, 2009, Barack Obama became the fourth US president to win a Nobel Prize, winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in international diplomacy." because I thought it flowed better. Hope that's alright with people. Ironholds (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• The language is fine, but please don't add a fifth paragraph, this is a featured article and WP:LEAD SECTION limits it to four. Also, there is no need to add a reference after the statement as it is adequately covered in the body.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm well aware of the requirements for featured articles - I've written three of them. I did not add a reference to anything, nor did I add a fifth paragraph to the lede. Are you looking at the current version of the article? Ironholds (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't mean you personally, but someone did. If you check the history, I merged the last two paragraphs and deleted the refs.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Might be good to mention that to the person who did, then. The way this conversation is structured makes it seem to a casual observer (and indeed, me) that the comments were directed at me. Rather than posting on a talkpage the editor might not even read, would it not be better to a) find out who did it specifically and b) talk to them? Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• By that argument, your comment about tweaking the lede was directed at the IP who was talking about the number of presidents who have won the prize. I think more eyes are likely to see it here than on some editor's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly not. My comment was started with a bullet point. Yours was a *: after my *, which is commonly used to denote a "thread" - see the format we're using right at this moment? Your intent, I assume, was to indicate to the editor that this sort of thing violates the MOS. If that's the case then "more eyes" isn't important since none of them belong to to the person who made the edit, and a talkpage post would be far more logical. Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. Your personal feelings aside, "more eyes" is a good idea. Had Wehwalt's comment been hidden on an individual user's talk page, I (and others, I assume) would not have learned about WP:LEAD. For that matter, had you not taken offense, I wouldn't have learned about the convention (which I consider counter-intuitive, but I bow to your greater, duly cited experience) that a bullet indented under another bullet is taken as a direct reply, but a bullet indented under a non-bulleted paragraph is not. That's useful info. sharpner (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• The wording needs some tweaking, but I have gone ahead and reduced the Nobel sentence in the lead - having the exact date and all the info about other winners is really too much for a lead already filled with essential info. Joshdboz (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Most political experts agree that Obama is likely to win all the peace prizes for the years 2009-2017." are there any sources for this? it seems highly unlikely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.89.35 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Already removed as vandalism. Regards SoWhy 13:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Nobel Peace Prize

I created this article a short while back and it is already seeing Obama related vandalism. Would help if more people added it to their watchlist and also helped edit/expand it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice succinct title compared to some other possibilities. Joshdboz (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But do we need a separate article for it? We never had any for any other years, so it should rather be integrated into this article, shouldn't it? Regards SoWhy 13:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be brought to AfD, but there's much too much info to squeeze it all into this already packed article. Even the current section is likely too much (after all, we've still got 3-7 years of presidency to go, plus post-presidency). Joshdboz (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How much more can be said other than "he won, 4th president to do so, here's why" ? This is a singular news event, which is why wikinews exists, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversial award

I can't edit it. This is a BLP. That uncited stuff about it being "controversial" in Norway needs to be removed immediately.

No, it needs to be mentioned that the award is controversial because it is highly controversial. This has nothing to do with BLP at all. The controversy is thouroughly cited in the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize article, with the leaders of the two main opposition parties as well as other parties criticizing the award, which is highly unusual. The award has also been the subject of criticism abroad. Only mentioning the praise and not the criticism would be a violation of WP:NPOV, our core policy which every article must adhere to. GVU (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

One Norwegian politician and the OpEd of a newspaper do not a controversy make. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not one politician. Here's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html GVU (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Its the head of the opposition party. Is the head of one political party criticizing their opponents newsworthy? Didn't think so. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

GVU: You've posted an editorial, a non-English source, and a Wall Street Journal article (the WSJ is owned by News Corp., whose CEO is Rupert Murdoch); see WP:COI. Please source with something more substantial than references which violate various Misplaced Pages policies. DKqwerty (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a "controversial" award; Obama has done a lot to bring the world together. This is a BLP; adding inappropriate and controversial statements to the bio is not acceptable. AdjustShift (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" – please, get yourself a blog. This is an encyclopedia and your edits are totally unsuitable for this article. It is a controversial award because it has been widely criticized. GVU (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" – this is what the Nobel Committee meant. The exact citation was "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples". See . AdjustShift (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So? Thorbjørn Jagland is not the only one entitled to have an opinion. GVU (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment ("please, get yourself a blog"). "Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" is not my point of view; this is what the Nobel Committee meant. AdjustShift (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's at least worthy of note that the award was met with "surprise" by Nobel observers, as he was nominated only two weeks into his presidency. That's the way it's being described on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Supporter of Obama or not, there is no question that it is a controversial award: the top five articles on CNN right now are all discussing whether or not he deserves it in the first place. »S0CO 14:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. GVU (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Obama peace prize win polarizes Web ? Yes, the bloggers, the WNDS, the Free Republics are certainly all in a tizzy, but calling that "widespread and well sourced criticism" is a bit dishonest. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are simply ridiculous, the award has been criticized by the leaders of the two largest opposition parties in Norway, it has been criticized by Lech Wales, by The Times, etc. etc. 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GVU (talk • contribs)

Everything is a "controversy" these days. Just because people are talking about something doesn't automatically make it "controversial". And GVU: once again, you refuse to understand that none of the sources you've provided meet Misplaced Pages standards as reliable sources. Disagreement (especially from one's opposition and detractors) is not itself indication of controversy. As you pointed out, this is an encyclopedia; to that end, you should familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's sourcing and biographical policies. DKqwerty (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems as if everything this man does is controversial recently. Just because someone disagrees with it does mean it is controversial and even when articles (not editorials/opinion blogs) do mention it they mention it in that light. Brothejr (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem some seem to be having here; confusing criticism with controversy. Arafat winning (even though I support him and the award) was controversial. Gandhi never winning was controversial. This, while unexpected, does not seem to rise to that level. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fair at this point to say that it was a surprise. I do think the middle paragraph of the section, describing other nominees and the nomination process, is a little too much detail and a weight problem - if people are that curious how it came to be they can read the article on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think to be even more fair, this "event" hasn't even really played itself out yet. I mean, most of this thread existed before Obama had even made his acceptance speech! It's unfortunate that the pace and populous of the Internet force us to add these things moments (read: seconds) after they happen with large rushes to judgment, needless edits, libelous edits, redundancies, trivia, etc., etc. rather than being able to discuss them first, then add them after the "event" has played out. Or at the very least some semblance of what's going on can be established and consensus reached rather than every random person on the Internet tries to have his version his way. I think this article should be fully protected and only admins editing after reasonable consensus is reached. But I'm sure that will never happen. DKqwerty (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In the mean time. I have left a note asking editors to try to format their citations in some way - so as to avoid bare URLs. I can foresee such minor things being taken up on by the FAR sharks which I am sure have been circulating ever since Obama was elected. I think it is credit to the authors and users who maintain it that this article hasn't been challenged thus far. SGGH 16:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more than enough editors here to fix minor stuff like formatting. Hobartimus (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In case anybody has forgotten, Obama is the president of the United States. Therefore, just about every single word he says and every single thing he does will be controversial, if by "controversial" one means that some people will be happy while others will not. To call his Nobel win "controversial" at this point would seem as silly as declaring a year ago that his presidential victory is "controversial" because there were lots of folks who voted for McCain. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Victory from a crowded field

I'm going to be a bit nitpicky, but since it concerns the lead section of a featured article, I hope you'll forgive me. The lead contains the following sentence: "His victory from a crowded field in the March 2004 Democratic primary raised his visibility." What I'm wondering is, how exactly does "victory" come "from a crowded field"? Of course, he wasn't elected solely by the crowd in the field, so there goes one possible meaning. I assume the field had not been causing him some inconvenience from which he finally emerged victorious. So I'm not exactly sure what was intended by this phrase. The only source I found was a mirror of this article. My guess is that it's either his victory speech or his victory per se that raised his visibility. If it's the former beaing meant, then it's "his victory speech", not just "his victory", that came "from" (or, rather, occurred in) the field. If it's the latter, then the field seems irrelevant without some elaboration. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is referring to the fact that the there were a large number of candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, hence the "field of candidates" was rather large, and the statement is attempting to make a statement about his winning the nomination as a member of that large number of candidates. I agree that the word "field" may be somewhat ambiguous. I will take a crack at rewording it. --Jayron32 18:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

Today I've seen several times the neutrality warning at the top of the article. But it has been removed quickly all times. My question is why? I mean that without a clear discussion it is only an attack from the removers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.91.203 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't talk about Obama is a nazicommunoislamofascist liberal who wants to kill your grandma enough. Sceptre 18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear those warnings were added contentiously as a reaction by editors who didn't like not getting their way. DKqwerty (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is, and has been for some time, a Featured Article. That means it has been through a rigorous process, several times, that checks neutrality among many other criteria It is one of the most heavily viewed articles on the encyclopedia with tens of thousands of web hits. The new notices come from editors who are excited about Obama's surprise Nobel Prize announcement and think there is some trouble or controversy we should cover. It is far too early to know if there is going to be a significant controversy, and at any rate, neutrality disputes have a normal process to go through on the talk page and possibly dispute resolution pages. It's really bad form, and it makes the encyclopedia look silly, to attach them to the most important articles moments after an editor does not get their way on a single edit. That would be like unfurling a giant "caution, wet floor" banner in front of the White House. There are less alarmist ways of dealing with it. Wikidemon (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemon. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

? There already has been a controversy? You don't wait and see for controversy, if it happens it happened. It was a bipartisan and world spanning controversy as well. Anyway, it think some of the commenters above need to watch what they say because it is offensive, and very insulated to say "kill your grandma" and "it's clear that they were added by editors not getting their way" when that is not clear, and if anyone is getting their way, it would be these commentators. JohnHistory (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

obama (a product of pavlov's experiment)

Question

Criticism of Nobel Prize

Black & White photo

In the Family and personal life section of the article there is a black and white photo of the Barack Obama and his wife Michelle. That photo seems out of place with all of the color photos that are in the article. Is there a color version of that photo or can a similar color be put in its place? SMP0328. (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a better pic from the article Family of Barack Obama. This is more complete, and in color. How does this one look? --Jayron32 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. Thanks. SMP0328. (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Numbers of template

I just notice that the Time Persons of the Year template is not showing. So, I sort of investigated and find that this page has too many templates. The preview page even says "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." I think something should be done, like cut down the number of template used or merge some into one.—Chris!_c/t 22:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that and am confused. I'll try bringing it up somewhere, as that is really odd. He does have a lot of templates though. Oddly, when you only edit the last section, it looks perfect. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution: merge "Public Image of Barack Obama" and "Family of Barack Obama" templates into the "Barack Obama" template as collapsible sub-sections; Basically, similar to the "Obama Administration personnel" template. Default setting would be to leave the main section open while "Family" and "Public Image" remained collapsed. This should reduce the number of overall base templates by two. Edit: "US Presidents to win the Nobel Peace Prize" should also be on its way out as it's proposed for deletion. DKqwerty (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I brought up the issue here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard#Barack Obama page Templates Problems. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I support DKqwerty's proposal. Also, is Template:Obama cabinet necessary? It is redundant to Template:Current U.S. Cabinet as far as I can see.—Chris!_c/t 06:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've merged them.—Chris!_c/t 21:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I repeat what I said at WP:AN: Looking for a technical fix for this is really asking for special dispensation to be made for bad articles. When it comes to navigation templates this article is bad. The same list of cabinet officers is given three times in three separate navigation templates, for example. And that's far from the only duplication. The succession boxes are duplicated, too. Fix the poor quality of the article, and the technical limitations won't be an issue. Uncle G (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly taken out the following templates per WP:IAR: Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents (wasn't link to here), Template:Obama cabinet (redundant to Template:Obama Administration personnel) and Template:US Presidents to win Nobel Peace Prize (pending deletion)—Chris!_c/t 06:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I removed {{Current G8 Leaders}} (redundant to {{Current G20 Leaders}}) and {{Current U.S. Cabinet}} (redundant to {{Obama Administration personnel}}. Any other "strict subset" templates ought to be avoided given the issues with template limits. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize Problem

The Nobel Peace Prize was granted to Obama

"...for a newer peace initiative on Obama's part than had been recognized by past Nobel Prize awards"

- Can anyone tell me what this "newer peace initiative" is please. Otherwise, I think it should be reworded. Even if you can think of something it should at least be explained because that is way way too vague. JohnHistory (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

First of all, what "peace initiative" and second aren't all Noble Prizes for "newer" things then the last ones? That seems like a throwaway line. JohnHistory (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

It is from one of the sources, and it should not be too hard to figure out. The statement means that most winners of the Nobel Prize were rewarded for peace-related initiatives of theirs that had been underway for some time, in an advanced stage of the process - e.g. they had achieved their goals, had spent decades trying, etc. Obama was awarded several months into a presidential term when most of his agenda had not been enacted, let alone achieved results. If you think the wording is unclear or misstates the source, feel free to propose something better. We're trying to get to the heart about what is different about this, as opposed to prior peace prizes. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should lose that strangely worded line, even if some source also uses it. It seems to be about nuclear disarmament (although who really knows, with the vague phrasing), which is something the Nobel Committee emphasized in their statement. However, Obama has worked on this issue prior to his presidency--this very article mentions his efforts in this regard as Senator, before his election as President. On might well argue that a mere US Senator wouldn't be given the award, and so on; probably true but also certainly WP:OR (or WP:CRYSTALBALL). So if this "initiative" is several years old, is that really the newest such effort among Nobelist? I dunno, but the waters seem to become very murky very quickly. Obama didn't get the prize "as President" per se, and many non-Presidents have received it. Obviously I don't think the matters are unconnected, but it's easy to have too much emphasis on the presidential service time (or especially the absurd trope going around that Obama was nominated only days into his term... as if the Nobel Committee had to be sequestered from the moment of nominations, and rule out all information about events happening thereafter).

Of all the things sources have said about the award, surely we can find something equally notable that isn't so torturous to parse and understand correctly. LotLE×talk 07:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to rewrite that line for two days now and I can't come up with a concise way to say it. I agree it needs to be changed, but on this one I have little advice. DKqwerty (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The way MSNBC puts it is at least comprehensible: "... Obama's efforts are at far earlier stages than past winners'" . The wording of the entire paragraph could be improved. I'd suggest:

Obama is the third sitting (fourth overall) U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and is the first to become a Nobel laureate during his first year in office. Members of the selection committee acknowledged the award may be perceived as premature; one member said she hoped it would be seen as "support and a commitment for Obama. And I hope it will be an inspiration for all those that work with nuclear disarmament". The award was a surprise to Obama, who said ...

It seems like if we're going to mention this at all we should include something about the committee's reasoning. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I found it suspicious that the criticism on the Nobel prize is not even mentioned in single word in the article. It's not that the criticim was negligible or came only from one dircetion. All discussions on this matter were deleted from the talk page under WP: Soap box on WP:Not a Forum. Again, very strange.--Gilisa (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what are you suspecting? That's a rhetorical question - if you'd like to help out please do so but as you can see many editors are working actively on this here and on other articles related to the prize. The discussions closed as WP:SOAP were just that, soapboxing about Obama and the prize (and sometimes on other editors here) that was not aimed at specific things to consider about improving the article. There is plenty of talk on how to do that, including things along the line of the award being premature, undeserved, and unexpected. Many editors don't think it is helpful to highlight the criticism as such because people criticize everything involving the president and this is no exception. It would also be a mistake to assume that just because someone says the award is undeserved they are criticizing Obama or the award. Obama himself says it was undeserved but he accepted it anyway. Undeserved awards can be calls to action, and people rise to the occasion. That is a significant part of the public reaction as well. It just happened a few days ago and it is too early to know what will happen. The section is too long as it is, so it's best to stick with the facts, touch on the major issues briefly, then use the more specific articles to go into the details. Later, with history as a guide, we will be in a better position to know the aftermath and importance of the award. People's initial reactions are, in the long run, not always very important. Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all your commentary, not only yours-but others as well. I think that when it come to political issues, and this is one, not refering to the criticim, which unlike you wrote-was exceptionall as it crossed all parties and appeared on headlines around the world, could be seen as political itself. Also, crticism is unique in that it emphasize that their is no hard reason, not even disputed one, to give him the Nobel and in that never before such criticism was heard on any other American president who recived the Nobel and it's rare anyway. Obama said that he's undeserve (but pharsing seem to have double meaning), but of course that this statment of him wasn't voluntary, he had no other choice but to make the criticism look softer. It's a very well known theorem in crisis management: take the responsibility and this way the microphone as well.--Gilisa (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Again, it is a mistake (and probably classifiable as WP:SYNTH) to assume that all comments about the novelty or undeservedness of the award are criticism of either the committee or Obama. Plenty of "hard" reasons have been advanced for the award, not the least of which is the Committee's own. Lack of political bias is not a political thing - that's what we strive for here on Misplaced Pages by presenting the relevant opinions of due weight, if they can be reasonably sourced, each in their proper place. Controversies, criticism, and scandals about the award itself are generally best detailed in a number of articles devoted to the subject - for example, there is an article about Nobel award controversies, another about this particular award. There have been 40+ US presidents and 4 awards. That is a small sample size. To draw significant conclusions out of being the only one out of four, when the world keeps changing in the meanwhile, is unwarranted. We simply have a situation where there seems to be a strong bipartisan opinion that the President did not deserve the award for accomplishments to date, that the Committee must have had other things in mind, and a bunch of variations on that. This article section is about something that is only a few days old, as I said, and the initial reactions people have to a major event are likely not in the end going to be very important. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving up. It's not hard to source the criticism and I think it's noteworthy in a line or two in the relevant section here for all the reasons I mentioned. --Gilisa (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the amount of bipartisan criticism does warrant mention, but more importantly the vague esoteric wording is the biggest problem. Again, there is no clear cut "peace initiative" that he was given the Nobel Peace Prize for, so saying "a newer peace initiative" is not acceptable. First of all, nobody can know what that means, and you never hear an unqualified phrase like "peace initiative" it's always qualified by "israeili - Palestinian" or this or that, not some generic "peace".

-Also, Wikidemon, aside from your not wanting to include any criticism which was noteworthy, I think you are wrong to say we should wait to see what happens to then explain why he got an award. That is a very strange idea. He got the award, not the future him but him now. He could drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca and still be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He got it for something, or because of something (politics) waiting around to see if he does something "peaceful" in the future cannot be the reason for his being awarded something in the past anymore then it could be a reason for him not to be awarded it. I mean that's a kind of "fill in the blank" approach to this that really can't hold water. He got the award for something real or imaginary predicated on the here and now. Political pressure, sure, but not some intangible future accomplishment. JohnHistory (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Waiting to see what he was given the award for is tantamount to saying he got the award for nothing, and that it was just a strategic move by the Nobel committee to build pressure, and play politics. I mean, that is the bottom line in terms of that sort of logic. JohnHistory (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Can we site and mention something to back up "promoting world wide diplomacy and cooperation" such as an initiative or something concrete? Probably not, right? I think this may be related to the whole sit down with passed enemies concept that Obama said on the campaign trail (right before the nominations ended for the prize) that he later backed off of, but even that is not "world wide". JohnHistory (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

The wide open nature of this award, and the whole notion of sit and wait to see, makes the criticism more needed because it helps to explain this murky area you get into trying to describe the question the big question of "why?". JohnHistory (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I thought it was interesting that Jay Leno said that Obama's greatest accomplishment as President so far is winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I have reviewed many sources now, and find a large consensus on the left and right that this was not about anything Obama has done. It seems Obama not being Bush was a major factor. You even have SNL slamming it. Here's an NBC piece, which is hardly conservative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeMvXSFkBOM&feature=related

There was a link, now deleted, from this article to the article Black Nobel Prize laureates, a similar link appearing (in a "See also" section) in the articles of all other eleven black Nobel Prize laureates. Is there a justifiable reason why this link was removed?11:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove that, but I'm not sure "black" would be the most accurate, when he is biracial, which is an official category, and a noteworthy one at that. Are we just going to choose one half over the other with all biracial people now? That seems wrong to me. JohnHistory (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Nobel committee defends selection

I have added a brief bit about the Nobel selection committee's public defense of the award to Obama, which several news sources have reported as a "rare" move or an "extremely rare" event, which adds to its notability. Also, Obama's quote was a bit too much text for a summary presentation in a encyclopedia. OK for a journal, but any reader can easily access the Wikilink to the main article. So, in an attempt to keep the article length manageable, and to ensure free space for the remaining three years of his term and the rest of his life, I removed only the quote. It really doesn't add anything that isn't already there, namely that is was a surprise to him and many others. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nobel Prize Committee highlighted efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation (particularly in Iran), " -How is obama's nuclear nonproliferation stance different from Bush, specifically in regards to Iran? JohnHistory (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

This is not a forum for that discussion. Grsz 00:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

224 References?

If u look at the Barack Obama article u will see a very long scroll bar. Once u scroll down to about the middle of the scroll bar the article ends, and then u hav a list of over 200 references. im just suggesting, y not add one of those "show/hide" menu options? it would make it seem less cluttered at the bottom with all of those references. --Mark0528 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Though not eloquently stated, I'm inclined to agree with the premise. Though I think it's be inappropriate to "Hide" the references (I'm even sure what would happen when clicking a ref's superscript if they're hidden), I think a <div style="max-height:500px; overflow-y:scroll;"> would be more than appropriate. If no one has some serious objections to this method, I'll just go ahead and add it. Unless of course a template already exists to do it for me without XHTML markup… DKqwerty (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I object strongly to this single-purpose ad-hoc fix to a highly prominent article. I can see many potential problems with the <div> idea suggested. Off the top of my head:

• Will it change the readability of a printout of the article (on any major browser/OS combination)?
• Will it make it more difficult for readers of the article using hand-held devices?
• Will it interfere with expectations of downstream syndicators of the article who do not know how to process that unusual tagging?
• Will it make the article footnotes more difficult to access for readers using disability assistive devices.

Unless or until ALL of these questions can be answered with a definitive "NO", it is highly inappropriate to introduce this novelty. LotLE×talk 21:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. These questions apply at least equally much to putting a hat in the main article, which is simply not done in article space anywhere else I know of. LotLE×talk 21:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would add that if some well-tested template exists for dealing with the situation of articles with many footnotes, I would be happy to use it. I am not aware of one, but there are many MediaWiki corners that I do not know. We should not innovate wildly on what has been the most read article on Misplaced Pages (dunno if it is right now, but I'm sure it's near the top). The place to test an experimental feature is on some comparatively less active (and less actively modified) article... which might well have happened, I'd be happy to learn about the knowledge gained there. LotLE×talk 21:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

well first of all, any person reading this article that has any intelligence would know that if they were to print it out, and wanted the footnotes to show up, they would know that all they had to do was click the "show" button. For the second thing, again, all u would hav to do is click "show". Third, do u want to rephrase that? in more simpler terms? and lastly, again, its as simple as clicking a button, which im estimating would add an estimated 2 seconds to reach the footnotes? i have an example, which while it isnt used for footnotes, i dont see y it cant be used for them. http://en.wikipedia.org/Uncharted_2#Reception Ignore the content thats it being used on. My point is to show an example of the "show/hide" button that u would hav to click to be shown the content. It's on the right where it says "Reception"--Mark0528 (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

quoting this guy (who is on this talk page under the Nobel Peace Prize section towards the bottom) "It may be brought to AfD, but there's much too much info to squeeze it all into this already packed article. Even the current section is likely too much (after all, we've still got 3-7 years of presidency to go, plus post-presidency). Joshdboz (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)" the part im referring to is when he says "after all we've still got 3-7 years of presidency to go, plus post presidency". meaning we could afford the space seeing as how HALF THE ARTICLE is references. and just because you havent seen it done on other major articles, doesnt mean we shouldnt start it with this one, although i admit i havent seen it done on any other articles either. this one it seems to be kind of essential though, because imagine an article possibly 4-5 times this long? just based on his next 3-7 years as president. --Mark0528 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I see Mark's point (dude, whole words) and I've lamented the exceedingly long list of refs. However, I do get and support LotLE's points. To Mark for some explanation, the "Reception" section is a box table. Like Contents and those career discography boxes, we sometimes allow for collapsable boxes and tables, but references aren't boxed or tabled. So from that technical standpoint alone, it's apples and oranges. To your point about affording the space, Misplaced Pages only considers article text in their size constraints; infoboxes, photo captions, and references are not included when determining article size. (See FAQ10.) You can determine an article's actual length by copy-pasting it into a WP:Sandbox, deleting all the refs, infoboxes, photo captions, etc., and previewing. Nobody's expected to read the reference section start to finish, but it's important that it be there. Downstream means there are sites that WP:Mirror Wiki articles automatically, but do not duplicate its functionality with reference to collapsibility/interactivity of boxes and tables, they merely duplicate the linking. Abrazame (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

ah ok. i understand your reasoning now. but hey, theres no harm done in tossing out an idea? --Mark0528 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicative footnotes

While I definitely strongly oppose some experimental and fragile technical "fix", I think the regular work of editing is very relevant. In particular, without having carefully reviewed it myself, I strongly suspect that we have a large number of mostly redundant references. A source we use in one section might be perfectly adequate to support a fact we state in a different section. As often as that is the case, we can remove one of the references, and just refer to it in both places. This takes some real editorial work, but I would not be at all surprised if such work could eliminate 1/3 or even 1/2 of the references as redundant, while still keeping the article well compliant with WP:RS and WP:CITE. This cleanup can, of course, be done incrementally by as many editors who want to help. LotLE×talk 23:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization--being nitpicky again

Just a heads-up: Please remember that the word "president" should be capitilized when used as a person's title (e.g., "President Obama"), but not as a reference to the position that the person holds (e.g., "Obama is the president of the U.S."). I'm noting this only because it's so common to treat words like "president" as proper nouns no matter what, while a whole slew of university-level sources (e.g., ), and even Misplaced Pages's own Manual of Style, advise against this practice. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions of Ethnicity and the One Drop Rule

I found it interesting that Obama is not listed as "biracial" or even "multi-racial" (it's two races which is 'Bi" right?) at the bottom, and instead listed as "African -American". I understand the "one drop rule", but are we going to propagate and perpetuate that here on wikipedia in the 21st century? It seems that's exactly what we are doing. Biracial, or whatever you want to call it is a clear designation in many places in our society, and a noteworthy group for it's relatively small numbers. I think choosing one half over the other, has some serious pitfalls in its logic. Furthermore, what does african american really mean, when Obama has not even a single blood relative of african american lineage. Without getting into the cultural issues too much, lets remember Obama was raised by whites, and the amount of "black" people in hawaii is very small. I recall when people early on were challenging, a persistent theme in his early career in Chicago as well, Obama's "blackness" on these very grounds. It seems that "blackness" in regards to Obama is some test you can pass, or you can fail as deemed by other black people. That can't be a real designation then, because ethnicity is not something you can fail at. Thus, I think listing Obama as "biracial" is the only way to honestly express both his genetics, and also his background. I would hate to think that Jim Crow like logic would be furthered on wikipedia, noting that even then Obama would not posses "one drop" of african american blood. JohnHistory (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I agree. While I think "first African American president" is more than appropriate, the fact that this article never once references to him as "biracial" is a bit strange. Every time someone brings up this idea, there's usually a very immediate and reactionary response to such threads which boarders in an unintentional bias. Now, to be fair, most of these suggestions come after trying to change the lead of the article itself and are followed by complaints about the lead, which are understandably ignored or or directed to the FAQ. However, the idea that the article cannot address Obama as "biracial" is something that may need to be opened up again and the consensus reevaluated. Yes, perhaps a new consensus will be reached, and for some this seems to make them nervous; it can only strengthen the case for not using "biracial" if it's indeed still consensus, but if it's not the current consensus than we're holding onto tradition, bias, or otherwise. DKqwerty (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That strikes me as odd, because first of all it would need to be open for awhile, or I for one, would probably miss the discussion. However, I'm not sure why a consensus would be needed when this is a well verified fact. I mean could we have a consensus that said that Thomas Edison wasn't white and then follow it? All this designation does is to say that mixed-race, or biracial or multiracial people don't even exist. It's literally denying their existence. It cannot be permissible to choose one half over the other, and in this case it is even more confusing because as I said Obama has no african american blood at all, yet alone half. This will confuse a lot of mixed race children, and is not healthy at all. JohnHistory (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Rather than discuss all this in the abstract (along these incorrect assumptions on editor intent), can you please propose a concrete change or addition to the article, along with the sources? --guyzero | talk 22:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll reserve judgment until I see the proposal and the sourcing. One can say many things about Obama's background, history, race, ethnicity, and culture. But alas, we have room in the article to say only a few things about race lest we give race too much attention at the expense of everything else there is to say. He is indeed biracial / multi-racial (and "half white" as some people are apt to say - as most of the old terms for this are now obsolete and offensive to some people). I would imagine this is very important to people who are concerned about multi-racial issues, and perhaps his presidency will raise awareness that not everyone can neatly be categorized in one race or another, perhaps nobody can. But for now, most of the sources simply say he is black / African-American and leave it at that. When they do mention his mixed race they specify that he has an African father and a white American mother, but for the most part sources of general interest (as opposed to those writing about race) do not get into labeling him or putting that in the context of other mixed-race individuals. That's too bad, I think. But if the question is whether we "propagate" old ways of thinking about race the answer I'm afraid may be "yes", in that we can just go by the weight of the written sources, not our own opinions. Surely there are articles, perhaps books and scholarly papers, devoted to Obama being mixed race. But if you pile all of them on one side of the scale, and pile all the references to simply "black" or "African-American" on the other, the weight is overwhelmingly on the side of the latter. Nevertheless, I would hope for some mention in this article if it can be done appropriately, with rock solid sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic has been done to death in the past; most reliable sources identify Obama as African-American, and he self-identifies as such as well. This topic being dredged up for the umpteenth time...and by one of the primary agitators this spring during the wordnetdaily invasion...really serves little purpose. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Obama is biracial is implied pretty well in the very first sentence of the body of the article: "Barack Obama was born...to Stanley Ann Dunham, an American citizen of mainly English descent...and Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from...Kenya Colony. Does the article really need to continue, "England is in Europe, and Kenya is in Africa. While Caucasoids predominate in Europe, the Negroid type is more common in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, we may induce--correctly, it turns out!--that Obama is biracial"? And it makes sense to emphasize "African American" in the article, because that has become (and perhaps always has been) part of his identity. He has been far more prominently touted as the first Black/African American president than as the first biracial one. Also, "African American" does not necessarily denote black skin or negroid race (race is more biologically complex than skin tone, so "black" and "negroid" have rather different connotations). It is an ethnic--not just a racial--identity, and it is one with which Obama, having had a native African father, can be quite reasonable associated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting a few more words about the Nobel in the lead

I added a few words about the Nobel to the lead, but was reverted because "the fuller details are below". This is true, but it's equally true in regards to the presidential primaries and the presidential election. The primaries and election are qualified in the lead; they're given meaning with brief notes that he won the primaries because he defeated Clinton (as opposed to an anonymous opponent to be mentioned later in the article) and won the election because he defeated McCain. So why not note that he won the Nobel because he has promoted "worldwide diplomacy and cooperation" (as opposed to some mysterious reason to be saved for later)? But the fact that "the fuller details are below" is the reason why I made that particular addition in the first place. Later, it is stated that he was recognized "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". I tried to summarize this in the lead by saying he was honoured "for his promotion of worldwide diplomacy and cooperation." Without this sort of summary, and without prior knowledge of why he won, I would feel left in suspense, and the lead isn't really supposed to have that effect. But I think that the few words I inserted add considerably to the lead, because they provide the first glimpse of Obama-as-president. Up to that sentence, the lead has been about Obama's life up to his inauguration, and it leaves us with some uncertainty about his nature as president. And I strongly disagree that the addition damages the brevity of a lead that is so succinct (relative to other four-paragraph leads) in the first place. What do others think? Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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