Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:47, 24 July 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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, 84Auto-archiving period: 7 days

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.

Template:Community article probation

	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 March 16, 2010 Featured article review Kept June 17, 2012 Featured article review Kept October 22, 2012 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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following 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). 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. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Kenya Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Presidents / State Legislatures / Government Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). More information: /  This article has been selected for use on the United States portal. This article has been selected for use on the Illinois portal. This article has been selected for use on the Chicago portal. This article has been selected for use on the Hawaii portal. Template:WikiProject CD-People Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as High-importance).

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (September 17, 2007). "On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (April 3,2008). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (April 4, 2008). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (April 9, 2008). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (April 10, 2008). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (April 11, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (April 21, 2008). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (May 28, 2008). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (May 28, 2008). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880. Noam Cohen (November 9, 2008). "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. Staff (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

Template:Stable version

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 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

RfC: Should "the first African American to hold the office" have a footnote in the lead?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should "the first African American to hold the office" (of President of the United States) have a footnote citation in the lead? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A footnote saying what? And why? HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A footnote citation was added to the lead section of the article in order to verify the assertion that Barack Obama is the first African American President of the United States (via this edit, and was quickly reverted with the edit summary "Not needed -sourced in body - no controversy by reliable sources." WP:CITELEAD reads in part: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." It does not say citations are only needed if there is controversy among reliable sources, it says "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." This particular assertion has in fact been challenged many times. See the extensive discussion above (under #Footnote needed). Several editors here have requested the footnote/citation, and several others have decried it as unnecessary. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Any chance you could re-write that in plain English? I'll just ask one simple question again - Exactly what do you propose that this footnote will say? HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The footnote should point to reliable sources verifying the claim that Barack Obama is the first African American POTUS, per WP:Verifiability and WP:CITELEAD (part of MOS:LEAD). What part of this should I clarify? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Precisely what words would this footnote contain? (I'm truly puzzled. At least one of us is missing something here. Is there something wrong with my use of the English language?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I included this diff above to demonstrate precisely what I am proposing. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not a footnote! Do you actually have any idea what you really want? HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Call it a citation. It's the same thing. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not the same thing. Misplaced Pages demands a certain level of competence, and yours, combined with poor manners, is not looking good. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes, citations placed in <ref> tags are footnotes. See WP:CITEFOOT for a more detailed explanation. I have not been uncivil to anyone here, HiLo, but your comment here is rather less than civil. Why would you invoke WP:COMPETENCE? Just because YOU don't know the definition of the word footnote? Don't you know how to disagree with someone's position without making personal attacks? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, whatever the WP terminology, in general parlance any snippet of text at the bottom of a page that appears next to a symbol that corresponds with an identical symbol in the text in the body of the page might be considered a footnote, whereas a citation is a link to a supporting source regardless of where it appears on the page. Be that as it may, even if the competence essay does not say so, people have a lot more patience for people making suggestions here on the talk page than edits to the main page. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did you immediately post an RfC without first attempting to discuss the issue? On its face, this looks like an abuse of process. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the discussion above. Arkon (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• No Footnote - Footnotes in the lead are ungainly and bad practice. They are acceptable in low/mid-importance articles, but have no place in an article like this one. That said, I am sensitive to the whole "mixed race" controversy. This is probably a different debate entirely (and one that I'm guessing has been had over and over), but perhaps one could fidget in some kind of language like "self-described African American President", to try to make it clear that WP isn't taking a stand on his racial identity. NickCT (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

NickCT, please refer to WP:CITELEAD, which explicitly states that anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the lead of an article should be properly referenced. This is part of Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style, so I'm afraid your argument is counter to policy. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Read further into WP:CITELEAD. "the necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". Fact is the African American debate has been had over and over. Consensus on this topic has been found. NickCT (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• No citation. (This is a footnote, for the record). Agreed with Nick above me. As a rule of thumb, only quotations are cited in the lead.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Question. By "footnote", do you mean a cite? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I mean a "ref tag" or a citation template. Whatever you want to call it, it's the thing you see in the diff I linked in my rationale. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• No There are lots of fake controversies concerning Obama, and his biography should not spread FUD by attaching unnecessary cites or footnotes to each attacked fact. If it is true that lots of people do not understand what "African American" means, please update African American, but no further explanation is needed here. Further, an RfC for a topic "on article probation" (see box at top of this talk page) should not be so vague—the correct approach would have been to make an actual proposal so the details could be evaluated. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a proposal (actually, it was a follow-on to an issue raised here on talk by User:Beland). View the diff I linked in my rationale and you will see precisely what I am proposing. It does not spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to simply cite sources for the assertion that he's the first African American POTUS. The other editors here should know me well enough by now to know that I do not indulge any of the many whacko conspiracy theories from the lunatic camps, but I also take WP:Verifiability seriously, particularly in a biographical context. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

' I do not indulge any of the many whacko conspiracy theories from the lunatic camps ' I beg your pardon;? Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Birther arguments, closet Muslim arguments, etc., which are not substantiated by any reliable sources. Is that a problem? I'm not accusing anyone here of anything. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do have a problem with naming those with whom one disagrees: whackos and lunatics. Esp. as we're supposed to keep things civil here. Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

• No Citation. Ultimately, I completely agree with NickCT on this one even though I think there are positives that, in principle, could come out of adding a citation in the lead. Generally speaking, adding a source should reduce the number of folks who raise concern about it on the article's talk page. Alternatively, it could also bring more editors to the page challenging whatever sources are provided because they wish to bludgeon their argument no matter what. It's certainly true that this concern is raised often, but debate on the subject has routinely pointed to an overwhelming consensus based on self-identification and how essentially all reputable news sources reference him (e.g. , , ). I don't believe, in this case, adding of citation about this in the lead will effectively counteract the likelihood that this fact is so often challenged. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 15:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• No Citation Prefer fully uncited WP:LEAD with citations in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Citation not needed. By consensus, this article does not use citations in the lede because they are ugly and unnecessary (since everything in the lede is a summary of what follows in the body). If we are going to allow this one totally uncontroversial thing to be referenced in the lede, then we should reference absolutely everything. Come on! Let's beat the article to death with the Ugly Stick. Why not wrap a few key sections in <BLINK> tags while we're at it? Maybe some colored sprinkles and a dollop of butterscotch sauce? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• No citations in lede - I've been editing this article since December 2006, and can attest that it has long been consensus that we would not have cites in the lede. The lede is a summary of the article, and anything in the lede needs to appear in the text, properly cited. Overciting does not help the readability of the article and is just unnecessary. Further, it is absurd to cherrypick which phrase needs special attention and which not. As has been suggested above, there are those editors who might want cites for Hawaii and a host of other "controversial" matters. Although consensus can change, it clearly has not. Tvoz/talk 22:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not cherrypicking anything, Tvoz, I've been watching this article for a long time, chiming in here on talk now and again, and reading a lot of the user feedback. It's one of the most frequent complaints (probably second to accusations of favorable bias). That's where I saw the merit in Beland's suggestion. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by nom: I've pointed out WP:CITELEAD a few times, which is a subsection of WP:MOS. Several editors here have pointed to consensus against citing anything in the lead, but I assure you, any such consensus is only among editors on this page, not among the wider Misplaced Pages community (or is there consensus to strike down CITELEAD?). So are we just ignoring MOS now, just for this article? No one has produced a policy-based argument against including the citation in the lead, just that they don't like it and they think it's unnecessary. I would say the frequency of complaints about it (via edits, edit requests and article feedback, cumulatively) indicates that it is necessary. It is unwise to expect readers to hunt for citation #112 (or whatever it is) deep in the article before questioning something in the first sentence. That would be akin to posting a single "no trespassing" sign in the middle of a 1000-acre forest and then complaining of all the trespassers. I'm just saying let's try putting a sign at the gate. We are here to educate our readers, not to bait them, and we should face the reality that most of them don't understand everything about an article's topic before they look it up on Misplaced Pages. They should be able to educate themselves by coming to our article; they should not be required to educate themselves before coming to it. Anyone here who is more committed to their own ideology than to educating the reader should rethink the nature of their involvement in the project. Oh, and for the record, there were already two citations in the lead (including the infobox) at the time of my edit, so I'm not sure how committed everyone here really is to that "consensus" either. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  The infobox is not the lede. The lede is the introductory paragraphs of text. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• No citation. I have no inherent objection to citations in the lead, but this falls under WP:BLUE as something that is a commonly known fact. Andrew 23:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Citation not neededUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• No citation. No reason to cite common knowledge, whether in the lead or elsewhere. Jaytwist (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• No. Not necessary. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• No citation The extraordinary combination of: exact same fact being explicitly stated and cited in the article, and that the pattern here has been no cites in the lead, that there appears to be an overwhelming consensus to leave it out, that there is policy that lends some support for leaving it out, and (IMHO) no strong arguments have been made for duplicating it in the lead (i.e. not also applicable (e.g. bi-racial point) to the body of the article), I think that is enough for me to support leaving it out on a wp:iar basis. So, due to the extraordinary presence of all of the reasons that I listed, this is on an a wp:iar basis. (The rules say that if it is challenged (even if in the lead) it must be cited.) North8000 (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if there is strong consensus here to IAR then fine, I can accept defeat gracefully, but how is this edit so different from this one? Let's at least be consistent! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 20:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please self-revert your last. On this page, we are referring to the introductory paragraphs only when we use the term "lede". The reason we don't have citations in this area is because they are ugly. This is not a problem with the infobox, which is not prose. I am 99% certain that regular editors of this page will agree with me on this matter, because it was something we discussed way back in 2008. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's let those other editors weigh in first before we presume to carve out an exception to their (very recent) consensus. I'm not being tendentious, I'm being logically consistent. Come on, now, Scjessey, you and I have gotten along well enough up to now, right? You don't really think my intentions have changed any, do you? I really have no interest in POV pushing or playing politics, I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, nothing less, nothing more. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say that yes, it is superfluous to have a reference for Christian in the infobox.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@WM We can have a separate discussion about whether or not the reference in the infobox is appropriate, but you should not have removed that reference without first seeking a consensus. I believe your logic is flawed, because the infobox and the introductory paragraphs are very different things. The whole point of banishing the references from the paragraphs is that they looked particularly ugly, especially with the relatively large number of bluelinks. After not getting your way on the other reference, the removal of the citation from the infobox seemed more like a moody swipe than a logic decision. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not moody or emotional about it. I just think more citations would lead to less complaining from the peanut gallery. But those who have spoken up here have made it clear that there is consensus on this article against having any citations in the lead. The infobox is in the lead. The comments above did not say 'we don't want this citation', they said 'we don't want any citations in the lead'. I wasn't being spiteful, I was abiding the consensus that was expressed here. Like I said, if others here disagree with me, I can accept that, but we should at least be internally consistent. Either the consensus is there or it isn't. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be intentionally ignoring what I'm saying, so I'll say it again in as simple a way as I possibly can. The whole point of not having references in the introductory paragraphs of the article is that they look ugly, especially with the number of bluelinks there are. This is not an issue with the infobox, which has completely different formatting. When regular editors refer to the "lede" of an article, they are referring to those introductory paragraphs only, even if the infobox is technically a part of the lede. Here's the important bit: A consensus for no refs in the lede should not be construed as a consensus for no refs in the infobox. Now I personally don't give a shit whether or not the reference for "Christian" in the infobox is there or no; however, it should not be removed on the basis of a consensus that does not exist. It is a separate issue that demands a separate discussion. In summary, a consensus for no citations in the introductory paragraphs exists, but a consensus for no citations in the infobox does not exist. One more thing: we don't care if the "peanut gallery" want to be dicks about Obama's race or religion. We write the best article we can, rather than an article that is dick friendly. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually you are also misrepresenting the cnsensus. There is a consensus that "First African American" does not need a reference in the lead. That is not a consensus for no references in the lead, nor one for no references in the infobox. Most arguments above are arguing based on the triviality of the common knowledge claim, not based on an aesthetical preference for citation free leads. If we want to remove any other reference that requires another consensus. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

But there is a long-standing consensus for no references in the lede. It has been that way for some years now. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Religious views

I suggest the words "Obama is a Christian whose religious views developed in his adult life." with "Obama identifies himself as a Christian. His religious views developed in his adult life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.82.117 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious why. The proposed change implies Obama wasn't a Christian until later in life, which is a narrative that the right likes to push. The current language is just fine and is supported by the sources. Of course, nobody is born a Christian (or with any other belief). Humans are all born as atheists. Religion only comes to a person through indoctrination by parents/peers. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

False. People are not born atheist then convert to Islam or other religion. Infants are born to the church of milk and pee...their object is drink milk, pee in diaper. No religion, ok. Born as an atheist, speak for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.143 (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Obama's religion is United Church of Christ, not sure why omitted. That is a branch of Christianity much as Methodists are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.143 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Obama himself acknowledges that although his mother was a Christian, he was not "raised in the church." In fact, this statement is quoted near the end of our Misplaced Pages article. Try reading it sometime. This is not "a narrative the right likes to push," but an attack point that the left likes to push against the right. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is, the proposed text wants to change "Obama is a Christian" to "Obama identifies as a Christian" essentially, which is a subtle nod to the right wing fuckos who think Obama isn't a Christian. But thank you for the pointless troll comment anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

I fully understand why a controversial, acting US politician would have a locked wikipedia page. But I don't think it's possible to accurately portray Obama's presidency without including a section on the scandals that have driven his approval rating below 50%. There is no real mention of the IRS, Libya, or NSA wiretapping, which I think are a major part of his public image at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.245.253 (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yaaaawwwnn. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Please direct your complaints to the Presidency of Barack Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.246.133 (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? This is the Barack Obama article so NSA wiretapping and several other issues that have garnered criticism should be here. I´ve read the article and I don´t see anything negative. Can somebody explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.160.129 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Somebody has explained it. Kindly open up the FAQ section at the top of this page and direct your attention to Q6 through Q9. That addresses the original question of this thread. Regarding NSA spying specifically, it seems quite possible that the Administration's approach to spying, national security secrets, etc., and the controversy and fallout from that, will rise to the level that it is biographically significant and will be in this article. However, we are still in the middle of that news cycle and it is too early to know for sure. Lots of things that seemed very important at the time for a few weeks, e.g. the IRS treatment of Tea Party nonprofits, died away and probably won't be remembered much. That's not just negative stuff, positive stuff also fades over time. Incidentally, the standard for inclusion isn't whether it reflects positively or negatively on the person, it's related to whether it helps tell their life story. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

First President born outside of Contiguous United States

Is not he first President, who was born outside of Contiguous United States ?? I think it will be right to write about it. 46.71.120.145 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's trivia, not an important or notable detail. The only people who still make any distinction about "the contiguous United States are Texans with an inferiority complex. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Tvoz

tarc, that is a personal attack. Stop it. I do agree that it should not be there because it is original research unless one can find half a dozen reputable bios mentioning it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.143 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Major omissions: Trayvon Martin, Henry Louis Gates

good idea..race relations sub section to article

−Any ideas for a draft? Include Gates and Treyvon. Could also include Obama's book but then it wouldn't be race relations, but could be Obama involvement surrounding race. Obama's book is a reliable source. This could be a splendid Misplaced Pages addition done in a nice way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.179 (talk)‎ (talk • contribs) 14:03, 21 July 2013‎

Why would those possibly be relevant to his biography? RNealK (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Because he chooses to make big issues of them, going out of his way to deeply involve himself in what should have been local issues, such as the Gates and Martin cases, magnifying them into national crises and massively increasing their media coverage. No other U.S. President has been involved in racial issues anywhere near as much as Obama. The Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy is mentioned on Presidency of Barack Obama, but the shooting of Trayvon Martin isn't. 94.197.211.200 (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you think the President should stay silent on matters of race. Here are a couple presidents who sent out the troops. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling that JFK had a bit to say on the matter too. Anyway, the Martin case made the national news on Australia's government broadcaster, and on many commercial outlets in Australia, BEFORE Obama's comments. It was never just a local issue, no matter what you would have liked it to be. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy is mentioned on Presidency of Barack Obama, but the shooting of Trayvon Martin isn't. See, this is why I closed the last discussion. This isn't relevant for Obama's biography, as this comment suggests. It's a waste of everyone's time to discuss this matter on a page where it doesn't belong (certainly not now and probably not anytime soon). I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 16:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• 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
• 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
• 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 African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• FA-Class Africa articles
• Mid-importance Africa articles
• FA-Class Kenya articles
• Low-importance Kenya articles
• WikiProject Kenya articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• FA-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• FA-Class District of Columbia articles
• High-importance District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject District of Columbia articles
• FA-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• FA-Class United States Presidents articles
• Top-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• FA-Class US State Legislatures articles
• Low-importance US State Legislatures articles
• WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
• FA-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• United States articles used on portals
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class New York (state) articles
• Low-importance New York (state) articles
• FA-Class Columbia University articles
• High-importance Columbia University articles
• WikiProject Columbia University articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press