Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 31 December 2013

Template:Community article probation

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.

	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

Template:Vital article

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). 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

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 4, 2013.

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.

Sad week (meta-discussion)

Village pump idea lab: Allowing old discussions to be rehashed on purpose to help include new editors

At Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Allowing_old_discussions_to_be_rehashed_on_purpose_to_increase_editor_participation.3F_.28So_newcomers_can_get_a_sense_of_inclusiveness.29 I've looked at an interesting forum post from a user who argued that by not allowing old discussions to be rehashed (I used Barack Obama as an example) (and I think without new evidence would apply here!): "They are bored and unable to pay attention and unable to have the same discussions--which made the people talking a cohesive group--with newcomers so no one feels like they belong." and he argues that's how many Usenet groups declined into being "stale and intolerant"

Would anyone mind taking a look? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I once read, in WP:TALK if I remember correctly, that we are encouraged to copy discussions out of the archive when the current talk page could benefit, and I think FAQs grew out of that being much less workable. EllenCT (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Stunningly misguided as it applies to this article. We are a group of volunteer encyclopedia editors, not a suicide squad. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by that?!? EllenCT (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You want to make Misplaced Pages more like how Usenet used to be? That's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Don't you realize that sites like YouTube and news sites are trying to get rid of trolls, socks and battles, by making people who post comments use their real names? This is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, not a Usenet group. So when articles reach a certain point, they have less activity because there is less information to provide readers. It's unbelievable to me that someone would want to turn article Talk pages into a "Freeper" gone wild Usenet alternative. That is not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about. As Misplaced Pages has obtained more and more articles, and grown to the size it is now, there is bound to be a natural decline in activity because more articles have been finished. The amounts of web hits haven't decreased, they have increased. If Misplaced Pages hopes for more articles, there are ways to achieve that. One is to encourage editors to write about local issues and people. You can bet that the answer is not to encourage more battlegrounds for anonymous trolls, but hey, at least people can see what some people want to turn Misplaced Pages into. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Dave Dial & Wikidemon on this. As one of the long-time lead editors of this article, sometimes more active sometimes less active, I've seen far too much time wasted on this kind of thing. We are not here to provide a place to alleviate boredom. We're here to maintain and update a featured article with extremely high view count for obvious reasons. So, in a word, NO. Tvoz/talk 08:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we can safely close this discussion now. It is clear from the replies here (and at the Village pump) that the idea is going nowhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --NeilN 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Should Obama be part of Wikiproject Socialism?

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.

I know that "socialism" is equivalent to "communism" in the U.S., but by international standards, any left-leaning politician is a socialist. I've seen that just about every other even nominally liberal politician is part of this wikiproject, so I ask: if Tony Blair (hardly a far-left politician) is part of WikiProject Socialism, then why should Obama be excluded? 78.70.153.159 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikiprojects don't work that way. They aren't categories...--Somchai Sun (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"...but by international standards, any left-leaning politician is a socialist." I just scanned through the articles of my country's "liberal" leaders. None of them were part of this project nor would I expect them to be as none of them espoused economic policies associated with socialism. --NeilN 23:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If the members of that project decide to include him for whatever internal reasons they may have, fine. That's not endorsing or approving, just saying that it's not really our business here what happens over at that particular Wikiproject. Also, not if it affects this article in any way. Any addition that would have the affect of associating Obama with socialism would be unencyclopedic and as such a disservice to readers. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What makes Obama left-leaning? From the point of view of those of us on the left, he's at best middle of the road. RNealK (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In politics, simple labels are for simpletons. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Parents' marriage: important info being overlooked

The following is a cut and paste of an active discussion that was collapsed in violation of Misplaced Pages policy, and subsequently improperly archived. Because that archiving could not be undone, I am manually restoring it. The exact violation occurred HERE on Dec 14th, an inexcusable misuse of Template:Hidden archive top (which occurred right after a deletion manipulation).

Quote:

This template should only be used by uninvolved editors... It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.

This section was in the middle of discussing important improvements to the article, and as can be seen below, thorough sources are provided to support making such changes. To summarize the suggestion:

- Obama's parents' marriage was interracial,

- Obama's mother got pregnant when she was a 17 year old child,

- Obama's mother was pregnant at the time of the wedding,

- Obama's father was already married at the time of this wedding,

- Obama's parents' marriage was not valid due to father's bigamy, therefore birth was not "legitimate" (reliable source needed)

- Obama's conception was the result of statutory rape. (reliable source needed)

Restoration follows below, with action still remaining to be taken for improving the article.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The article, as it currently stands, overlooks two points about Obama's parents' marriage that are significant and notable:

- They were married 6 months before he was born, indicating that the pregnancy was several months along at the time of the event,
- There is no mention the societal attitude regarding interracial marriage at that time (1961).

My effort toward a fix has been repeatedly reverted, with one reason presented being, "Wedlock was a big deal back at the time, sure, but not now in the 21st century". I see this as a mistake. Facts need to be placed into historical context for them to convey full meaning. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states at the time of his birth, and was not made legal until he was about to start 1st grade. This article has no mention of the word "interracial", let alone link to an article on the topic. Both points are significant factors in his parents' relationship, and this article will be improved by adding specific mention of these two facts.

As it stands now, both facts can be derived from info that is given (dates and ancestry). But leaving out specific mention creates a vacuum that is akin to having the article not mention that Obama is the first black president, and then justifying such omission by saying something like, "this is the 21st century, and race isn't important". By leaving out these two points, we are failing to give proper context.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

So what? I fail to see how this relates to this article. We have articles for Barack Obama, Sr and Ann Dunham, his parents. As well as his early life and extended family. That's quite enough. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that there are many facts regarding BOsr&AnnDunham that belongs only in their respective articles, but parents divorcing makes for a significant impact on the life of a child and these are two factors that belong here in this article about BOII. Here is an example of how both points can be communicated painlessly:

Proposed edit:

"The interracial couple married six months prior to his birth on February 2, 1961, in Wailuku on Maui and separated when Obama's mother moved with their newborn son to Seattle, Washington, in late August 1961..."

Current edit:

"The couple married in Wailuku on Maui on February 2, 1961, and separated when Obama's mother moved with their newborn son to Seattle, Washington, in late August 1961..."

Seven added words, that's all I'm suggesting here. I see those seven words to be strongly related to the article, doing a lot to help to communicate where Barack Obama came from and who he is today.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't like hearing this from me, you can listen to Barack Obama himself discussing the importance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3nRBwlcE-0&t=11s

"Look, when my parents got married in 1960-61, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South."

Notice also that the year he first gives for his parents' marriage is 1960, when it can be expected that a lawyer with his level of intelligence would be perfectly aware that his parents got married in the same year that he was born in. While it is not our place to delve into the reasons why he did this, it is certainly our job to communicate the straight fact that he was born six months after his parents got married.--Tdadamemd (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It would give undue prominence to the American social mores of the time to state them matter-of-factly in Misplaced Pages's neutral voice, and putting them in full context is beyond the scope of this article, as they apply to every unmarried, divorced, or interracial couple from the era. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition, regarding "As it stands now, both facts can be derived from info that is given (dates and ancestry)", see WP:OR. We don't derive information, we use what Reliable Sources without giving undue weight to the information being added (a second problem I see with your suggestion). JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a distortion of what I meant in my use of the word "derived". I was not saying, "take Fact A along with Fact B and then synthesize Fact C". I was saying Birth Date - Marriage Date = 6 months. This HARDLY constitutes original research. Neither does, "observe photo of black father & white mother - now synthesize original research that this is an interracial relationship". Hello people, what we are discussing here are totally UNCONTESTED facts: the marriage was interracial and she was pregnant when she got married. No one disputes this. The issue at hand is whether or not the article would be improved by stating these facts. My position is 'yes'.

My next post here will address this view that the edit would introduce undue weight/undue prominence. On the contrary, the proposal does not go far enough. The article would be improved by also stating explicity that the mother was 18 years old when she gave birth. (I know, more higher math involved here too.)--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No, this is absolutely what original research is. It is synthesis. Besides, we don't include anything in the article unless it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Nobody is talking about either the interracial marriage or the day of conception because nobody cares. Back away from the dead horse, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I post a video with Barack Obama himself, expressing the importance in his own words, and there is a backlash from no less than three editors with the sentiment that it is not important enough for an article on Barack Obama. Somebody needs to tell him about this Misplaced Pages consensus, so he will stop talking about its importance.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Show me a list of links to reliable mainstream media sources or scholarly works that demonstrate the significance of Obama's conception date and/or the significance of what society thought of this specific interracial marriage in relation to Obama's biography, and then maybe we can have a proper discussion. If you can't do that, let it go. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• This very clearly looks like an attempt at synthesis. Anything mentioned about his parents relation should be supported by really good secondary sources. Not by inferences, innuendo or his own statements in random interviews.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, we are discussing facts that are totally uncontested. If the problem is that the proposed edit is not citing sources, there are a wealth available. Here are just the first ones from a quick googling of books:

How Obama Made It?: A Layman's Guide, by Young Sop Ahn

Ann Dunham was only 17 years old... There she met Obama Sr... They married only a few months later in February, 1961. The parents on both sides objected to their marriage. At that time, racial discrimination was severe in the American continent, and inter-racial marriage was illegal and punished as a felony in almost half the mainland states. However, at the time of their wedding, Ann Dunham was already three months pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr.

A comparison of John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama, by Natascha Drews

2.2.2 Obama's social background

His parents met... A few months later, Ann Dunham was pregnant already, they married in 1961. At this time marriages between white and black Americans were forbidden in many other federal states of the United States.

The Obama Question: A Progressive Perspective, by Gary Dorrien

Classes began in late September. By November Ann was pregnant. A discrete wedding was held in February 1961, although there are no official records of it. Soon afterward Ann realized that her husband was already married and a father, with a second child by his first wife, Kezia, on the way. ... Obama was born in August 1961, by which time his parents' marriage was effectively over.

Barack Obama in Hawai'i and Indonesia: The Making of a Global President, by Dinesh Sharma

Probably unaware that most Kenyan men practice a form of polygamy, Ann Dunham remained in the dark during her brief marriage to Obama Sr. that he was already married and had a Kenyan son... "In Kenya, polygamy was (and still is) legal, and there is no limit to the number of wives a man can have. ..."

... When the news of their marriage, which took place on the island of Maui on February 2, 1961, reached the remote Kenyan village of... Ann Dunham was already two to three months pregnant. The Obama elders, especially Obama Sr.'s father, Hussein Onyango, refused to accept the marriage, for it did not follow the proper village customs, and most importantly, he did not want a white woman sullying the Obama blood (Obama 2004a).

That last one give a reference of Obama himself, and here is that exact quote from the original: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, by Barack Obama

...my mother began to retell an old story... "... When the two of us got married, your grandparents weren't happy with the idea. ... Then Barack's father--your grandfather Hussein--wrote Gramps this long, nasty letter saying that he didn't approve of the marriage. He didn't want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman, he said. ... And there was a problem with your father's first wife... he had told me they were separated, but it was a village wedding, so there was no legal document that could show a divorce.... Then you were born, and we agreed that the three of us would return to Kenya... By this time Toot had become hysterical--she had read about the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya... and she was sure that I would have my head chopped off and you would be taken away." ...

"We were so young, you know. I was younger than you are now. He was only a few years older than that."

Barack Obama writes a book about his life, and in choosing the title he picks "...A Story of Race...", and you all freak out when I suggest inserting the word interracial as a single adjective to help describe his parents' marriage. There are a wealth of books written about Barack Obama, and the issues I have pointed to are addressed by a wealth of those book authors. Yet people here freak out as though I am making some crazed push into uncharted territory. Ok, let's say that no one here likes to read books. Just take a look at this webpage from Biography.com:

http://www.biography.com/people/ann-dunham-434238

The very first sentence is:

Ann Dunham (born November 29, 1942) met Kenyan national Barack Obama, Sr. while at the University of Hawaii and married him after she became pregnant.

There are plenty other references available. I will go out on a limb with an estimate of hundreds. But so long as editors here prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand, there won't be a very bright outlook for an informed consensus on this.--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is not whether it is contested but whether it is relevant to draw specific attention to. The article already mentions both where his parents were from and when they where married and when he was born. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)You suggest that based on those data we

Tdadamemd has suggested two edits:

1. Adding the qualifier interracial to describe the marriage of Obama's parents, and,
2. Adding that they were married "6 months before he was born".

Regarding point 2, I've not yet seen (pardon me if I've missed it here) references to reliable sources noting the timing of their marriage and that it is significant to the subject of this biography. As others pointed out, just doing the math ourselves is Original Research - when reliable 3rd party sources offer significant coverage of that point, and note its significance to Mr. Obama, then it can be considered as an addition.

Regarding point 1, there do seem to be adequate references that describe Obama's parent's marriage as an interracial one. I would propose this edit as being worthy of consideration:

"The interracial couple married in Wailuku on Maui on February 2, 1961, and separated when Obama's mother moved with their newborn son to Seattle, Washington, in late August 1961..."

Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't tag marriages between people of different races with the term "interracial". Attention to such things is a product old American prejudices, not biographical significance to the children, which makes it unencyclopedic. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am astounded by the level of willful ignorance expressed by the vocal majority here. No biographical significance to Barack Obama? When he tells you in his own words of the significance? When he has written a book of his life and the title itself focuses on the significance? Are any of you bothering to read the quotes provided? Barack Obama himself is telling us that there was fear that his mother was going to be murdered - have her head chopped off - and he would be taken away. Yeah, not much impact on his life there. All of the authors quoted above are writing about Barack Obama's life and they all are communicating the significance. I spent 10 seconds doing a google search, and just presented the first four hits.

The question has become, How deeply do we want to bury our heads in the sand here? Take JoeSperrazza's reply, for instance: "I've not yet seen ... references to reliable sources noting the timing of their marriage..." One explanation, Joe, might be that you poked your eyes out before posting that reply. Here's what you are choosing to ignore:

From 1st book cited- "at the time of their wedding, Ann Dunham was already three months pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr."
From 2nd book cited- "Ann Dunham was pregnant already, they married in 1961"
From 3rd book cited- "By November Ann was pregnant. A discrete wedding was held in February 1961"
From 4th book cited- "Ann Dunham was already two to three months pregnant."
Biography.com cite- "Ann Dunham...met Kenyan national Barack Obama, Sr. ...and married him after she became pregnant."

If I had the technology, I would post these quotes in Braille, because there appears to be a blatant aversion to so much as a visual scan of the printed word here in this forum amongst those willing to speak up on this. You all are certainly free to continue to ignore everything I've provided, but it is perfectly clear what is important to all of these authors when writing about Barack Obama, and it is perfectly clear to me what belongs in this Misplaced Pages article.

I'll highlight one more quote:

But so long as editors here prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand, there won't be a very bright outlook for an informed consensus on this.

--Tdadamemd, 23:19, 10 December 2013

At the time I had written that, I was not aware of the depth that this forum was capable of, but now that has become quite clear. I am not so much disappointed with the editors who have expressed their choice to ignore the wealth of info provided. My deepest disappointment is with the untold numbers of editors who are sitting back and choosing to remain silent on this. The racial aspect of Obama's parents' marriage isn't important enough to mention here? Nelson Mandela's body isn't turning in his grave, because it hasn't even been buried yet.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple, relevant question. Was interracial marriage legal where and when his parents married? If it was, it's not really important to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

His parents were married in the United States of America, and interracial marriage was a felony in parts of this country at the time, punishable by a prison sentence.

Here's another simple question: Was it legal to be black and voted as president in 2008? If it was, then why does this article bother to mention the fact in sentence number one?

Following your logic, we would purge the entire article of any mention of race. And we'd advise Obama to change the title of his book because "A Story of Race..." is not really important.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Responding to earlier comments — maybe that's just a parting gripe, but insulting a whole group of people skeptical of your position is not a good way to convince them about it. Sure, there are a lot of things that are personally important, but unremarkable. Children get sick, they get into arguments, they face bullies, they have pets, they explore life, they have best friends and hobbies. They go out on dates, they have girlfriends and boyfriends, they get rejected. But these things, as influential and important as they are to the individual, are not biographically important because they are common and unremarkable. Sure, in a book-length biography you would mention some of these things to get a better sense of the person. But in a 2-4 page biography you have to choose what's noteworthy and what isn't. Is the fact that (shudder) the parents weren't married or they were of separate races at that level? That's a matter for editorial discretion here, and the argument is that interracial and unmarried couples isn't such an outrageous or uncommon thing that it's worth attention here. This concern isn't a denial of race or a refutation of racial progress, quite the opposite, it's saying that a couple of different races isn't such a crazy thing that we need to point it out as something strange or novel. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not see anyone being insulted. My post was questioning whether any of the people reply had actually read what they were replying to. And again in your reply now you are totally ignoring the viewpoint shared by those authors. Race was a thing. It was a huge thing. Ann's mom was concerned that her daughter was going to be beheaded for corrupting the gene pool. You are certainly free to dismiss anything you're presented with. But what you are advocating is counter to the decision that many Obama biographers have made. I might go so far as to assert all of them have made (all the one's I've read, at least).

We are in definite agreement that editorial decisions will be distinctly different between a book of hundreds of pages versus a Misplaced Pages article. But notice that no one is advocating, "let's add a full chapter or two into this encyclopedia article". The proposal being discussed is regarding the insertion of a single word here, and a few words there.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations to all those who have posted such thoughtful responses to a misguided suggestion, particularly Wikidemon's just-above comment (which should be indented with one less colon!). Discussions like this are generally pointless because there is no way to change the mind of someone who believes that "important info" includes whether one's parents may have been naughty. Probably just "say no" is about the best that can be achieved. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not about parents being naughty. This is about an act that was a felony in the country of this marriage, punishable by prison all the way up through 1967.

And this is about how the character of a marriage is distinctly different when the bride is three months pregnant at the wedding, versus not.

And this is also about how getting pregnant as a 17 year old child (Ann Dunham's case) makes for a qualitatively different parenting experience.

Inserting a few words to indicate these facts help give context to things that happened soon after in young Barack's life, such as why his parents got divorced, why she moved away from a country where interracial marriage was outlawed, and why Obama was raised mainly by his grandparents. If we decide to continue leaving those three points out of the article, then readers can easily miss important aspects of his story. One of the major impacts is that Barack became steadfast in his commitment to be a very different parent to his own children, as he explains in his book.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

New source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7An5LPXjOa4&t=2m40s

Obama: "I'm the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas."

The constraints of a news report are often a lot tighter than what Misplaced Pages editors face, and in this short NBC News report lasting only a few minutes, this point is highlighted not only a single time, but twice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7An5LPXjOa4&t=30s (same video)

Reporter: "...an African man...and a white Kansan...wed at the dawn of the '60s, when interracial marriages were still illegal in many places."

The racial aspect of the marriage isn't worth mentioning? To NBC News it was worth mentioning TWICE within the span of two minutes in a single short report - once from Obama's own mouth. This was in 2008, discussing his qualifications to become president, and the importance of his upbringing toward that end.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Another video interviewing Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mX_j89SoSQ&t=3m19s

Reporter: "When his daughter said, "Dad, I'd like to marry a black man from Africa", how did he react?"

Two things to note:
- This question was asked,
- This question was answered.

So clearly ABC News belongs to the same camp as NBC News (report posted above) regarding the importance of this issue, along with the wealth of authors quoted here. And as with NBC, this ABC report also makes multiple mention within the same report as to the importance of Obama's interracial roots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mX_j89SoSQ&t=7m53s (same video)

Obama: "...race and ethnicity and religion... often times are presented as dividing lines... I have swam in those waters ...they're all part of one big river that is the American story."

All of these sources point to a conclusion that we need to make it part of the Misplaced Pages story that we are choosing to present about him. This particular aspect can be fixed by inserting the single word "interracial".

(Ok, y'all can freak out now about how adding these 11 letters will destroy the article.)--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Tdadamemd has provided ample evidence that reliable sources commonly have noted that his parents' interracial marriage was illegal in many US states at the time and that his mother was pregnant when they married. This is not original research. Reliable sources indicate it is important enough to include in the article. It is an important part of his biography. Edison (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Tdsdamend has provided evidence that these issues were important to Barack Obama's parents (who have their own articles), but not to Barack Obama himself. I suppose one could consider adding them to Early life and career of Barack Obama to provide context, but in this summary style article they are not significant details. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree. Yes, it was illegal in some places; it was legal in other places. When we mention in the future (for example) a California-married couple from 2013, are we going to say "John Doe and Richard Rowe were married in 2013, when some parts of the US refused to recognize their marriage", even though thousands upon thousands of couples were married the same way? Unless it became important in their marriage (for example, if they tried to get divorced in Texas), it's not an important part of the story; for Obama's parents, mixed race marriage was not only legal in Hawaii, it was not particularly uncommon, and the fact that it was illegal in (say) Virginia had no bearing on the marriage or, as far as anyone can see, on the people involved. It's just a contextual historical point, notable in the discussion of the parents' relationship. --jpgordon 17:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One more source just posted below that says the exact opposite of what you are saying. See "extremely rare" (biography.com).

Throughout this ENTIRE discussion, note the wealth of sources that I have posted to support my position.

...also note that NOT A SINGLE SOURCE has been provided in support of what you and many others here have entrenched their position to be. You are voicing your own personal biases, contrary to what so many of these authors and Barack Obama himself are telling you is highly relevant to the life of Barack Obama. And by "life", I don't mean "early life". Notice that the title of the books being quoted here are not "Early Life of Barack Obama", nor are they "Life of the Parents of Barack Obama". These are books (and interviews) about Obama's career, explaining the deep roots of how he became the person he is today - how and why he deserved to become elected president, etc. "The Making of a Global President", to quote from the title of one source.

We have an encyclopedia article here about a person who is president, and we are choosing to skip a HUGE part of his story, when clearly many many authors and interviewers are NOT skipping that. Not only are they not skipping that, they are FOCUSING on these points.

If any of you really believe that your position is the proper one for us to take here, how about supporting your position with so much as one single source? I'd be very interested to see such a beast, if it exists. If you are incapable of doing that (one possible explanation as to why it has not been done to date), then you might be forced to face a conclusion that you all have no solid ground to stand on. Here's the current standing regarding reliable sources used in this section:

SOURCES IN FAVOR = 10, SOURCES SUPPORTING OPPOSE = 0

--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Brokaw would like to weigh in with his own view here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lNGCN6d0Ss&t=33s

Tom Brokaw: "But let's not forget that he's the product of a bi-racial marriage. That his father came from Kenya and married a woman from Kansas."

This is not MSNBC doing a piece on the early life of Obama. That video is from a live feed of primary election coverage.

And from the NBC News report posted above, here is Brian Williams explaining the importance and relevance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7An5LPXjOa4&t=7s

Brian Williams: "Tonight it's Senator Barack Obama, who's made his life story and his upbringing a part of his campaign."

Brokaw, Williams, Obama himself. Many many reliable sources that see these points to be so significant to his story that a strong argument could be made that this info not only belongs in the body of the article, but it also belongs in the lede.

Scjessey and jpgordon, your comments come on the heels of that post of Obama's quote where he has clearly asserted that his mix of "race and ethnicity and religion" are part of what qualifies him to be the best candidate for president. (Just so we might all be clear on exactly what is being willfully ignored here.) Brokaw and Williams above are highlighting that message.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm wilfully ignoring slabs of text from an obsessed editor. Right at the start, the lead of our article states that Obama is "the first African American" to be President. On the racial front, and especially because of America's past and now hopefully diminishing racist divides, that's what he will be remembered as being. That's enough. As for being a bastard, I know several. Most of them are great people. It's simply not an issue. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

HERE you are bringing up a very interesting point. I find this so interesting that I see it to merit its own sub-section here. I will start that.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Earlier in this section, the text from the biography.com webpage was quoted. Well let's have a look at what their video program presented: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89vsCdn-_0&t=4m27s

Narrator: "In the early 1960's, interracial relationships were extremely rare, and in many states interracial marriage was illegal."

That quote was from a program that fills an hour long tv spot. A common rebuttal here has become whether or not such info needs to be edited into a concise summary of Barack Obama. To help gain that perspective, rewind this exact same program to the very beginning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89vsCdn-_0&t=14s

"Barack was trying to struggle through issues of racial identity."

"His mother was white. His grandparents were white. He wanted to fit into black culture."

Biography.com lets you scratch their surface where after all of 14 seconds they start into a summary of the interracial nature of Obama's upbringing. That's not 14 seconds into their program even. That's just the intro to their program.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to get more than a little obsessive. Clearly editors here have formed a consensus that your suggestions have merit, but are not really appropriate for this specific article. If you continue to insist your suggestions are incorporated despite the prevailing consensus, people are going to start thinking you are just being tendentious and ignore you. This article is specifically about Barack Obama, yet your suggestions are specifically about Barack Obama's parents. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It has recently been highlighted that the consensus view here is totally unsupported. It has been said that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Well Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. What gets put into articles is based on what can be supported with reliable references. And until you, or anyone else on your side of this can provide even so much as one such source, the consensus view will remain unsubstantiated.--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So far you have posted walls of text to highlight two facts, at least one of which is glaringly obvious. No one has disputed the facts. However, not everything that is true warrants insertion in an article, and particularly for a complex page like this, additions need to be WP:DUE and must not involve WP:SYNTH. What reliable source has demonstrated that anything significant about Obama is due to the issue of exactly when he was born? What reliable source has demonstrated that anything significant about Obama is due to the issue of his heritage? A commentator says something about a "struggle through issues of racial identity", so what encyclopedic wording is proposed? Did Obama choose his career because of this struggle? Did this struggle actually have any effect? Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from WP:DUE:

"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public."

The proposal being discussed is not a minority viewpoint. It has repeatedly been show to be the mainstream viewpoint (ABC, NBC, BOII, etc).

And this notion that the info is 'undue' for this main article, instead belonging to an article on Ann Dunham or the father does not have a single leg to stand on. Why? Notice that every single source provided is a source that is focused on the topic of Barack Obama. The quotes from biography.com, for example, were not taken from their episode on Ann Dunham. It was their program on Barack Obama, and they made this point in the opening seconds of their intro (their "lede", if you will). All of the books that have been quoted here are books on Barack Obama. Not a single book is a title on his grandparents' life, his dad's life, whatever. It's all about the person who is president.

There is a HUGE disconnect that's been going on here where sources and the nature of these sources are being discarded. Either people here are simply not reading (nor watching) the sources, or for whatever reason they are choosing to persist in posting opinions that run fully contradictory to these wealth of sources while not posting so much as a single citation that might back up their view.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Tonight I am deciding to take a break from posting about Barack Obama. I will have a look back here after a week has past to see what has developed. Curiously, there are people here who see me to be obsessive. One simple way to prove this to myself is to step back and stay quiet.

But the bigger reason for my decision is because of the central position of the WPolicy quote that's been posted tonight - a direct quote from WP:DUE. There is no shortage of people here who appear to be passionate about the view that adding a short and simple mention of these facts would not be an improvement to this article. Yet the wealth of sources posted here (read 'all') support the understanding that the proposal will improve the article. One week seems to be plenty of time for anyone who cares to provide support for such a position to post it here. I will return to see how things develop, and then may take appropriate action in line with Misplaced Pages policy (or I may return to find that you all have done that yourselves).--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Obama understood to be a "bastard"

In the very lengthy discussion above, it has just been indicated that Barack Obama is a bastard. I have stopped short of making this point myself because, to date, I have never seen a reliable source that says this. But look what so many reliable sources do say. They are clear that Obama Sr was married at the time of his wedding to Ann Dunham. With bigamy and polygamy being illegal in the land that their marriage was conducted (the state of Hawaii), clearly this bigamist aspect would invalidate the marriage of Barack Obama Jr's parents, which would therefore make him a bastard child.

I am not suggesting that this info be added to the article. I am starting this subsection because the point that has been made tonight (above) can be seen to have merit. And there may be editors here who are aware of reliable sources that lay out this very basic logic. Marriages get invalidated for much less than bigamy (Bill Nye's is a recent example that's made the news, and has been added to Misplaced Pages). So if and when such sources are provided, it seems clear that the time would be ripe to include this. I myself have never looked for any such sources, but people may already be aware of this topic having been given solid coverage.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh FFS, who the fuck, apart from you, cares? HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It was apparent that you do, seeing how you are the one who raised this point.--Tdadamemd (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is one place where the issue is discussed:

On October 24, 2009 at 2:29 pm Juantew said:

The fact that his father was already legally married to his Kenyan wife precludes a legal marriage in the US;technically, his marriage to his mother never took place. He was therefore, a bastard. (Calm down, "m talking about the legal definition!)

Now that web forum hardly counts as a reliable source, but the logic is very simple and straightforward. I expect that there are reliable sources that state the obvious conclusion that Obama's parents' marriage was invalid. The article will be improved by finding these sources and making a note of this simple fact.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Statutory rape

An issue I have not seen raised is the obvious conclusion of Obama Sr impregnating Stanley Ann Dunham when she was a minor (age 17). No one questions the fact that of what happened (impregnation), yet the legal implications are obvious but not discussed. She was 17. He was six years older than her. In Hawaii, this was and still is illegal.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A googling of gives "About 50,000 results".--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I was not involved in this discussion, but on reviewing it I wholeheartedly agree with those who say that these edits should not be made. If anyone reading this article thinks it is not clear that Obama's father was black and his mother white, that person should read it again. To quote one sentence from our article: "That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind.". Crystal clear. The rest of this reads to me as just another way to insert innuendo, and that is not going to fly. As an uninvolved editor, I am closing this discussion again. Please leave it closed. Tvoz/talk 10:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

My reply to your comment above is that the statement you're quoting is a perfect example of why this article needs to link to that interracial article.--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue of WP:BLP has been raised. The reliable sources for all of this info are noted above. Obama Sr was married. Fact. Ann Dunham was underage. Fact. These are irrefutable, long established, well documented facts. All comments I have posted conform perfectly to BLP.

BLP informs us that in building this article, we must be "avoiding ... understatement". Well not mentioning pertinent facts is the ultimate in understatement. People here are so reluctant to so much as see these facts discussed that my posts have been continually deleted and compressed into oblivion. Well you can do whatever you want to me, but that will not make these facts change.

...and it will not change the obligation that editors have regarding facts that this article needs to present. Facts are not to be ignored simply because a person gets uncomfortable by learning them.--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:17, 31 December 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
• Selected anniversaries (November 2013)