 | Biography: Politics and Government FA‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Hawaii FA‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date
 | U.S. Congress Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Illinois Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
Barack Obama is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so! |
African-American, again
Sorry to open up this discussion again, but I do not see any justification for saying that if elected he would be the "first (half) African-American President" as the article said in that section. I didn't plow through history or this talk page in depth, so maybe that was just an edit that crept in and wasn't placed by consensus, but I object to it and changed "(half) African-American" to "biracial". I have no problem if it is changed to "African-American" either. But I don't think we want "(half)" in there. Are we now going to measure ethnicity by percentages? I don't think so. Did I miss something here? Tvoz 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If he so self-identifies, he's African American. He's most definitely not half-African American - he's half Kenyan. Race is a matter of self-identification, not blood quantum. If he's American (which he is) and black (which he is) he's African American unless he chooses not to so self-identify. Guettarda 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not entirely true. To be legally considered a Comanche Indian and receive the benefits from the government, you must have at least "1/8th" Comanche blood in you...so that means if your great-grandmother or great-grandfather was a "full" Comanche, and you can prove it, then you can be legally registered as a Native American. You'll receive a card from the government as proof with the percentage indicated on it. I don't know how it works with other tribes. Niasain 19:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe so, but irrelevant to this article. Tvoz 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- So has Obama tried to register as a Native American? What happened? Did he get his card? Jasper23 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with that. He is indeed African-American, and in his case that's not just a euphemism, or currently acceptable term. And mostly, the page should be consistent. (I believe he also self-identifies as biracial, by the way, but either way is fine with me. Just not "half".) Tvoz 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- And as for the hyphen - I have no opinion on that, as to me there is no difference. I just want the page to be consistent. Tvoz 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Discussions on Obama's ethnicity on this talk page have been extensive and have gone in circles. I deleted the sentence for now; it's pure speculation anyway (he's not even running yet). · j e r s y k o talk · 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fine with me. I didn't insert the sentence, but I could not let it remain as it was with a parenthetical "half". Surprised no one noticed this before, in fact Tvoz 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If he does announce his candidacy, the discussion will come up again; and, I believe social perceptions should not be used when that time comes. It is 2006. I would however accept first non-Caucasian. Shakam 06:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- The way I see it Jersyko was right to remove it... pure uncited speculation. Considering the nature of the race discussion, we should probably not refer to Obama racially unless using something from a reliable source. In that case the racial designation should match the source (similar to the "African American" designation in the first paragraph from the Senate Historical Office). It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to give him a racial designation per WP:NOR. --Rtrev 06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Shakam, referring to Obama as the first non-white.. is a little crude. Reasonorgan 09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand? Shakam 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This argument is absurd. For one, how can you state he is a non-caucasian, when he is half white? If you are going to argue that he is a non-Caucasian, he is also a non-African American. It is a contradiction to deny that he is Caucasian and claim he is African-American, when it is clear that he is NEITHER pure African-American nor Caucasian. Kelvinator 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you all are misinterpreting what I am trying to say. For weeks I tried to get "first African-American" removed because he is not African-American, he is a black/white biracial. I was just saying that since the Nazi Police is around, if he announces his canidacy, they will try to add African-American as a qualifier. I would first suggest putting "first bi-racial" but "they" wouldn't even allow that for the introduction to this article. Shakam 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Shakam, I find your nazi police joke very offensive and would ask you to remove it. Jasper23 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it isn't correct to label him as an African-American, but unfortunately this is a byproduct of American racial categorization. If you notice, the reference for the "African-American" statement in the first line directs to a US Senate page. It is the government that's classifying him African-American. Kelvinator 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So why not "biracial" and avoid all of this nonsense? Tvoz 02:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Read through the archives. There is a very lengthy discussion that led us to the compromise statement that is currently in the article. Jasper23 02:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I finally got around to reading the archives, and no, I don't believe the issue is resolved. While it is true that Obama himself claims to be African-American and the US Senate page identifies him as an African-American, it is a very valid point that he is biracial. This is a fact. Yet, the sentence in question makes no reference to this, and just says outright that he is African-American. Kelvinator 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind, anyway I think consensus has been reached in the archive pages and what you bring up has been brought up before. I think I will bow out of this conversation. Have fun hashing it out. Jasper23 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Gzkn suggested this:
- 3) Anyway, with regard to the lead, I took what you wrote above and came up with another compromise: "Obama, who is multiracial, is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only African American now serving in the Senate, according to the Senate Historical Office."
- There was no opposition to this suggestion, yet there has not been a change made that makes note of his mixed ethnicity. Yes, the suggestion was brought up, but no, there was no discussion of it. Kelvinator 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Gzkn suggested this:
- Here is my "how I really feel rant." Don't we all have mixed ethnicity? Do you believe in pure race? I for one don't. For me it is a lot easier to label him with a social construct than a falsely constructed pseudo-biological one. Obama is an African-American. It is silly to argue otherwise. Who cares if he is biracial or multiracial? If Obama wants to be black, let him be black. If he wants to be African-American, I am fine with that too. Who are you to tell him who he is and who he cant be. Let him put himself in his own box. Jasper23 03:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Jasper23, I agree with you, race is a social construct. However, the argument made before (and this will be the last time I bring this up, I know everyone wants to end this conversaion) is that if you accept race as a social construct, you are acknowledging that it is a subjective viewpoint. Kelvinator 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just a note, per WP policy on talk pages it is better to use
strikeoutthan it is to completely remove when changing comments already made. --Rtrev 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. How do you strikeout comments? Jasper23 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- <s>Is the tag to strikeout comments</s> it looks
just exactly like this. --Rtrev 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- <s>Is the tag to strikeout comments</s> it looks
- Regarding changes to the intro, I'm not going to argue about it any further here. I support the version currently in the article, as it's sourced to an undoubtedly reliable source and does not say that Obama is objectively African-American, but rather that a particular source says he is African-American. I support this, as it is indisputably accurate to say that the Senate historical office says he is the 5th Af-Am and only currently serving Af-Am. We can question the Senate historical office all we want. But that's what it says. This Wikipedia article doing no more than repeating the office's claim, with the caveat that it is, in fact, the Senate historical office making the claim, is the best way for us to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This has been talked to death, and the current version is an acceptable compromise. Basically, I don't see any improvement over the current compromise, in terms of Wikipedia policy, in any other proposals. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Jersyko I don't think there is really much more to discuss on this topic. --Rtrev 03:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I emailed the Senate Historian and inquired about the categorization. I will get back to you after should I ever get a response. Kelvinator 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Here is my "how I really feel rant." Don't we all have mixed ethnicity? Do you believe in pure race? I for one don't. For me it is a lot easier to label him with a social construct than a falsely constructed pseudo-biological one. Obama is an African-American. It is silly to argue otherwise. Who cares if he is biracial or multiracial? If Obama wants to be black, let him be black. If he wants to be African-American, I am fine with that too. Who are you to tell him who he is and who he cant be. Let him put himself in his own box. Jasper23 03:37
Falsely constructed biological one? I think the social construct is false. And even though we all have mixed "ethnicity", his is diametric. It seems to me like African-American is becoming another Hispanic. Hypothetically speaking, if you called yourself a female (and you are a male), do you really have the right to put yourself in your own box? Shakam 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
middle name
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the consensus reached was that Barack Obama's complete name including his middle name of Hussein was correctly included in the first sentence in boldface, as per Wiki style, and then again in the first sentence of "early life" as this is an expansion on the first intro sentence, but that since he is widely known as Barack Obama, the title of the article and any other references to his name would not properly include his middle name. Some people are known by their full names (e.g. John Kenneth Galbraith), others are known by first and last with middle initial (e.g. George W. Bush), and others by their first and last names only, even if they have a middle name (e.g., John Kerry). So I believe the name in the infobox should remain as Barack Obama, the name he is generally known as. Therefore, I reverted the last edit. Tvoz 07:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think your reasoning is sound. He is most commonly known as "Barack Obama" hence the title of the article. I think his infobox should reflect that. His full name appears in the article so I see no need to change what you have settled on. --Rtrev 08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- The "early life" sections of others not known by middle names, e.g., John Kerry, do not include middle names. I am removing Obama's from this section. Cj67 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- You know what - I don't really care either way, myself. I reverted the previous edit earlier today and reinstated the middle name in the Early Life first sentence because I was hoping to avoid an edit war over this incredibly minor point - I thought this had been hashed out here enough. The reason, to me, for including the full name in the first sentence of Early Life as well as in the intro sentence - and nowhere else - is the Early Life section expands upon the information that is sketched out in the Intro, and in this case there is additional detail in Early Life regarding his name that clarifies the intro. Namely, he is actually a "Jr." - his name is identical to his father's name - and so if we say there that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr, and that he is the son of Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya, etc., we are clearly providing a succinct explanation of how his name came to be. I agree that he is not commonly known by the middle name or the Jr, and that's why I say above in an earlier comment (yesterday) that neither belongs in the the infobox. But Early Life should be used to expand upon and clarify and provide details for the introductory sketch - this does - and I would say we should reinstate it. But I mean it when I say I don't want to get into an edit war over this - it is far too unimportant a detail to warrant such dissension, in my opinion. So I didn't revert it again - instead I'd like, once again, to hear what other editors of this page think, reach consensus, and for heaven's sake move on. Tvoz 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously, the name should be included in the intro. Standard practice, however, is to use only the most commonly known names throughout the rest of the article, including "early life" sections. See, e.g., Al Gore. Thus, "Hussein" should be in the intro but not in the early life section, in my view. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems there is no dissent, so I removed it again. This makes it consistent with others, as noted previously. Cj67 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Since his father has the same name as him and on his birth certificate it says "Barack Hussein Obama Junior" and his father's name is "Barack Hussein Obama Senior", should we come to an agreement on the use of the suffix Junior or Jr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.140.199 (talk • contribs).
- Please note that we do have guidelines for this in the manual of style. See here. Gzkn 02:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Semi-prot
I requested semi-protection for this page, fyi. The IP edits are killing my watchlist. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hooray! Good move - and I think it should be long-term. Thanks for taking the initiative. This is a good article, and our energies should be spent on improving it where needed, rather than running around after these destructive, and often racist, vandals. It's a pleasure to not have to wade through all that crap. Tvoz 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
circular reference
Footnote #5 is actually a circular reference, as the article it footnotes credits as its own source wikipedia. In other words, Wikipedia should not quote a source whose main source is wikipedia. Also, the minor changes about his stepfather's occupation and Barack's childhood are from the following source: [discoverthenetworks.org]
The circular reference whose link was removed is http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143957108. The article credits "wikipedia and its agencies" as its own source. --Djbrei 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Consensus on intro wording in is Archive- NEW EDITORS PLEASE READ
For new editors: there is hidden text on the intro for good reason - please don't change the relevant sentences without reading the extensive archives on this point, and then please discuss here before proceeding, as requested. Editors of this article worked hard to reach consensus on how to accurately and neutrally describe Senator Obama, and apparently it was agreed that the US Senate Historical Office was a neutral source and that they should be cited - in the text as well as in the footnote - exactly as: "According to the U.S. Senate Historical Office, he is the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history and the only African American presently serving in the U.S. Senate." followed by the footnote. I was not editing this page at that time, but I believe the consensus reached by the editors involved should be respected. So I have reinstated the agreed upon text, and I hope that this reverting will stop. I also believe discussion is welcome, however. This is not a closed subject - nothing ever is closed on Wikipedia - but reverting wars won't get us anywhere. Tvoz 08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was here when this editing was been discussed. The deal is this: It is unclear one way or the other to describe Obama's racial background. Most attempts by Wikipedia editors to "decide" what to call him are pure and simple WP:OR. It is not out place to assign a racial descriptor to Obama so it is best not to refer to him in racial terms unless you are citing from a RELIABLE SOURCE that describes Obama's race. Otherwise you are running the risk of violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Its all in the archives many times... please read. --Rtrev 14:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
See opening paragraph:
- Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention while still serving in the Illinois State Senate. In November 2004, he was elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat by a landslide in a presidential election year marked by Republican gains. (note no citation)
These two bolded bits show some of the pro-Obama bias that comes out in the article. Surely, he is a phenomenon and significant politician. But some of the rhetoric in the article takes it too far. Any other comments or views on this issue should be outlined below; I am not establishing a comprehensive look at the POV of the article, but it is quickly obvious that it is not neutral. Happy editing! Shagmaestro 14:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)