Talk:Barack Obama

Biracial?

I was looking through the reader feedback. A very common theme is that he is biracial. I know this has been discussed before, but in light of the feedback, do we still think we should way he is African American?

To be clear, I don't really care one way or the other. But the extensive reader feedback is there.William Jockusch (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous reader comments on the matter have no bearing whatsoever. The project has standards for sourcing information in articles, and the sources here follow the American normal of using the "African-American" terminology. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is one of those times where the truth isn't important to Wikipedia. Really not worth rehashing. Arkon (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this ship has long since sailed.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that for (encyclopedic) accuracy, he should be described as biracial. I gather that African American tends to be synonymous with black; which imo is an important, dramatic, coup for his proponents; E.g. "The first black president!". Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Please take the time to read Q2 in the FAQ. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. ' the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. '

This is an encyclopedia which holds popular opinion higher than accuracy? Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Again, please read FAQ #2. Are you perhaps unfamiliar with American conception of race? You may want to follow some of the links and read up on the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

' 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 Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." ' That doesn't explain why you can't/won't give prominence to both. Beingsshepherd (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Well, yes, actually it does, unless you can demonstrate that a significant number of reliable sources give as much emphasis to your proposed additional description as to "African-American". Fat&Happy (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

For those claiming biracial is factual, please come up with a precise, universally agreed definition of race, then we can proceed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You could, of course, start here, or here, or maybe even here. Not to mention the many available sources that use the term regarding Obama and others. Arkon (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Footnote needed

Currently there is no citation in the intro itself to support using the term "African American", though there are elsewhere in the article. If the decision is to "follow the sources", and there are no sources cited, this creates a problem.

It is not merely anonymous readers who describe Obama as "biracial" or "multi-racial". If you look at the Wikipedia article Multiracial#United_States (and Biracial redirects to Multiracial), or Multiracial American, you'll see Obama's photo clearly displayed and read about him in the text. Moreover, which term to use is a major political issue, and a controversy which is also documented in reliable sources. See, for example, the debate at [4].

Given how the Obama self-identifies and how he is usually described, I think it's fine to leave "African American" in the body text, but I think it would be wise to add a footnote that says something like:

President Obama has one parent of African and one parent of European ancestry. He identifies as African American, and is described this way by his official White House biography ("President Barack Obama". whitehouse.gov. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)) and most media sources.(Citation) Some others refer to him as "biracial" or "multiracial";(Citation) see Multiracial American for more background information.

One-drop rule also explains more of the history, but I'm not sure that's appropriate to link to directly.

I think this would be an improvement because:

• Some people find this label a simple factual error; an explanation with references would make this politically delicate article more credible.
• Readers not familiar with racial identity politics and practices in the United States may be confused about the apparent discrepancy.
• The label, as demonstrated by the debate, is politically charged. Some people who disagree with it find it non-neutral, which makes it problematic for Wikipedia to use without qualification. (For example, some critics on the right try to deny Obama an important "first" by saying he's not really African American or make him look like he's lying about his race. Others on the left are unhappy that race must be a binary classification, or that Obama is not supporting the right of multi-racial Americans to identify that way, or don't believe that distinct races exist at all.)
• A lot of feedback complains that the article in general is biased. If we want to have any hope of sounding neutral, this issue should be handled more delicately, especially since this is one of the first claims in the article and it's a very bold one.
• Some of the feedback complains that the article is incorrect and that Obama is actually partly Arab. (I expect that's more common among his opponents, but some people also generally confuse Arabs with Muslims, and Obama's father was previously Muslim and the middle name doesn't help clear this up.) If we want to have any hope of educating people who hold factually incorrect ideas, it's important that this claim be better referenced.

-- Beland (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, "he identifies as African American, and is described this way by his official White House biography" is the be all and end all of the matter. There is no footnote in existence that could be created to adequately deal with the constant ignorance and browbeating surrounding this particular topic. Sometimes it is is ok to just tell people "no". Really. Tarc (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources have to be independent. An Official White House biography, obviously isn't. Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Beland may actually be onto something here. If adding a footnote to our use of the term in the lead could slow down the rate of questions/comments/complaints over it by even 10%, wouldn't it be worth doing, even just so we don't have to keep rehashing it every three days? And what could it hurt? If it could slow down the complaints by 50% it would free up a lot of our collective volunteer time to make actual improvements elsewhere, and if it improves the article's perceived reliability (we know it's reliably sourced, but does every reader know that?), then that's a win-win, isn't it? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it would not reduce the rate at all. Almost all of the "questions/comments/complaints" are out and out trolling, and 10% because the people who can't keep reading a paragraph or two down to learn more about Obama's early life and parentage are not going to mouse over a footnote and be satisfied. Obama self-identifies as an AA, he is described as such by sources, we don't need a footnote to explain away the ignorance fretted about above. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm going through and separating the trolling from the complaints with merit. People who complain that the article should say that Obama is biracial are not ignorant; they just have a different point of view. Wikipedia itself actually says that on other articles, but not this one. I am wondering, as Wilhem is, what the downside would be. -- Beland (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I just realized, an alternative to a footnote is to say in the main text that Obama is "the first African American and first biracial person to hold the office". Both are true; one as a matter of identity, and one as a matter of classification. If another biracial person is elected, I don't think anyone will be able to claim they would be the first. -- Beland (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Beland, I agree. I believe your wise suggestion should be added.Beingsshepherd (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

If he says he is African American, then he is African American. Race is a personsal issue and can be very subjective depending on how a person sees themselves. Barack Obama could also be described as bi/multiracial because he is the offspring of two people who each identified as different races. However since he does not commonly consider himself biracial then he should properly be identified as African American although both descriptions could be accurate. Barack Obama has equal claim to the descriptor European American/ Caucasian as he does African American since he inherited an equal share of his genetic make up from his mother who was of European decent. It is really telling that in 2013 this issue of racial identification is still being debated by people. I stand by my statement that a person should be regarded however they want to be regarded. Barack Obama is African American because he says he is not because he appears to be.Fjf1085 (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a fan club. We don't pander to how the subjects define themselves. Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

As far as racial identification goes, yes we do. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

So if President Obama decides he's Asian tomorrow, we amend that *fact* accordingly? Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

That's a pointless hypothetical deserving of no answer. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You just astonishingly claimed: we pander to subjects' (preferred) racial identification. Are we here as a reliable information source, or to flatter noteworthy people? Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

If a footnote would help clarify the article then I don't see the problem with adding one. --Philpill691 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We are not adding a footnote for this; no amount of footnoting will ever alleviate simple ignorance. I myself am of the same mixed parentage as the president, yet due to my upbringing and skin color I identify as "African-American" as well. The term is more a social construct than a specific marker of racial makeup, and is what most American men and women with dark skin associate themselves with. Simple as that. Tarc (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most of the world sees him as African-American. (I speak as an Australian.) There's no point going down any other path, nor going out of our way to justify that description. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

the term is as unnecessary and as bizarre as referring to you as a European-Australian, or me as an American-European, or JFK as an Irish American. just because it is current popular slang as black, colored, etc. once were, it does not need to be perpetuated here. no other president is identified by race or racial stereotypes (African-American is not a race) Darkstar1st (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Dunno where you're from, but it's obviously an American habit to label people that way. They do use Italian American quite frequently, and I suspect Greek American is common enough too. One of the important things about Obama's Presidency is that it was unthinkable that someone of his background could become President even 20 years ago. His "racial" background is important BECAUSE it's the USA. Oh, and I agree that it's not a race. Obama is human, just like you and me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

All of this discussion is essentially irrelevant. The preponderance of reliable sources that exist (and they are counted in their millions) refer to Barack Obama as an African American, and Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. This is reinforced by his self-identification as an African American. Walk up to most any random person in the street and ask them to describe Obama's ethnicity, and almost everyone will say African American, black, or some variation thereof. While the "biracial" label is true, it is simply not of great significance. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your last remark is totally unsubstantiated. ' Barack Obama: Let’s not forget that he’s America’s first bi-racial president ' ~ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/barack-obama-lets-not-forget-that-hes-americas-first-bi-racial-president/2012/11/08/938765d4-29b1-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_blog.html

Tarc says "no amount of footnoting will ever alleviate simple ignorance." I disagree. Reliable information is precisely what alleviates simple ignorance. That's what we're all doing here, isn't it? We're building an encyclopedia to enlighten readers all around the world. If there are, as Jessey says, millions of reliable sources calling Barack Obama the first "African American" President then finding one or two of these to place in a footnote should be easy. What I don't see is any compelling reason to withhold our sources for this from the readers. Continuing in the same way will yield the same results. Readers will continue to complain, ask on the talk page, and change the article until we at least put a footnote. To stubbornly refuse to do so is not helping to improve the encyclopedia, it's just perpetuating the cycle. Try it and see. I'll bet we'll get fewer complaints over it if there is a footnote there. Or keep refusing and I'll open an RfC. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you or the timely confirmation of Tarc's assertion. Please see footnote No. 112 (as of this writing) supporting the statement "He became the first African American to be elected president." in the "2008 presidential campaign" section. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In what way does that confirm Tarc's assertion? Because there is a footnote buried in the middle of the article? We're talking about the mention in the lead. Welcome to the conversation. And before you say we don't have to cite it because it's in the lead, WP:CITELEAD states: 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. So again I say, there is no compelling reason not to cite it in the lead, and MOS (and common sense) supports adding the citation, since it is clearly controversial. It's not our place to tell people it shouldn't be controversial. It is controversial, so it is our place to inform people via the article, not to make them chase it down in the FAQ or get into a big debate on the talk page. FWIW, I agree with Tarc 90% of the time, but not on this. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 20:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm mixed on this. I don't have the stats but many blacks in America have some recent white ancestors. It would be undue, and probably insulting to some, to put a footnote in each bio that the person is actually mixed race or biracial. Instead we note the relevant facts if any of their parents and their background, which may or may not speak to their parents' race, culture, ancestry, religion, etc. If you go back beyond the recent past the whole concept of equating race with ancestry breaks down. And I suspect if you go a few generations into the future so many people will be mixed race and the obsession with the topic will seem silly. However, in Obama's case race is a big issue because he's the first African-American President, something few people thought could happen so soon. It was a historic breakthrough for America. His being the first biracial president, the first from Hawaii, etc., is not as big a deal for sure, and the US-based sources confirm that by their relative lack of coverage of these subjects. On the other hand, even though he is the American President, this is an international encyclopedia and some, particularly those from other countries that have their own understanding of race and culture, are perplexed that he is called black when he is of mixed ancestry. It would not make sense to explain America's concept of race in every article about a black American, but perhaps due to the special nature of this article and the amount of interest worldwide, it would be helpful to explain America just a bit here. Kind of the way that if you go to the most famous monuments there is a sign in many languages to help our international guests, but if you go to the bus stop it's just Spanish, English, and perhaps French or Chinese. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There aren't citations for anything in the intro. Everything that needs to be cited is referenced in the main body of the article, including him being an African American (as pointed out by Fat&Happy). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a source citation, but rather an explanatory note. And it doesn't need to be in the lede, it could be in the body. I'm not even sure how to do that consistent with the MOS (manual of style), but keeping in mind that this is a featured article anything like this would have to be done properly per the MOS. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what percentage of these perpetual disputes are actually started by U.S. residents who refuse to acknowledge that the U.S. actually has an African-American president rather than members of the international community who don't understand the American views of race. I'm pretty sure residents of Canada, home to many descendants of escaped slaves, have managed to follow events in their giant next-door neighbor fairly closely. One of the sources currently cited in the article is the BBC. HiLo, from Australia, seems to grasp the concept, as does Scjessey, who I believe has identified in the past as European, or at least not from the U.S. That's representation from a fairly sizable chunk of the English-speaking world. And for those who know absolutely nothing about the history of race relations in the U.S., African American can be linked. For those who choose to rely on their instincts rather then following a link – well, his father is African and his mother is American, so African American should seem intuitively correct. How many other major articles in Wikipedia use notes to explain why well-cited material is accurate even though the reader may not [want to] believe so? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder why you are framing this as people's beliefs. It's a fact that he is biracial, it's a fact that he identifies as african american. That's all. Arkon (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point Arkon. It's a verifiable fact, written about in many reliable secondary sources. It can and should be verifiable in the article. Yes, I know there's a citation somewhere deep in the body of the article, but many readers see the mention in the lead and stop reading there, so it should be cited in the lead as it has been demonstrated to be controversial. WP:CITELEAD (part of WP:MOS), states: 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. That's why I think we should put in the footnote. It's controversial, whether we think it should be or not, and it doesn't really matter where the readers are from. Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, period. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 20:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, except you're wrong. It's not controversial. There are almost no reliable sources that emphasize Obama being of mixed race, and even less that mention any so-called "controversy" over Obama being called the first African American President. In fact, there are so many reliable sources that describe Obama as the first African American President, it falls into 'common knowledge' territory and doesn't even really need a source in the body. Or that would be the case except for the incessant complaining of those who can't accept the fact he's President. Someone wondered above if the anon complainers from the article feedback were really International people wanting to understand race in America. Every one of those complaining about Obama being listed as the first African American President resides in the United States. I checked. So no, there is no 'controversy', insofar as reliable sources are concerned. The 'controversy' is just disgruntled internet trolls that could care less if there is a FOOTNOTE explaining the reasons Obama is regarded as the first African American President. But if people want to indulge the false notion that adding a footnote will help with all the trolling, then go ahead and open a RFC. There is no consensus to add it here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

But you're reading the word controversial in a slightly different sense than what I was saying. I didn't mean to imply that reliable sources disagree, but rather that our readers often disagree. Perhaps I should have stuck to the "likely to be challenged" language of WP:CITELEAD. I apologize for not communicating my meaning more clearly. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Professor vs. lecturer

We got two feedback complaints on this issue last year, possibly from the same person:

24.18.159.159 found what they were looking for. 10:42, 17 April 2012 | Details

   Barack Obama was NEVER a professor. He was a lecturer. You need to change this in the list of positions he has held.

93.32.187.155 did not find what they were looking for. 19:28, 30 April 2012 | Details

   Obama was NEVER a constitutional law PROFESSOR. He was a constitutional law LECTURER - there's a big difference.

The infobox just says "Constitutional law professor". I added "(Senior Lecturer)", since some people make this distinction and others don't. [5] says "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track." However, User:Fat&Happy reverted this change with the edit summary "rv; unnecessary clutter for infobox, detail of positions is in article text".

This seems problematic because clearly some people are seeing only the infobox part (which does not have an explanatory footnote) and consider it inaccurate or POV (perceived as giving Obama an unwarranted promotion). The article text does not explain that Senior Lecturers are considered professors. -- Beland (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please make some effort to read the talk page archives before changing something that is obviously going to be controversial. This has been discussed to death on many occasions. The institution at which Obama taught referred to him as a professor, and we go with what the sources say. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The article itself does not say "professor", it says "taught as a...Lecturer...and as a Senior Lecturer". I'm not objecting to "professor" as well, but people are complaining that it looks like the article is claiming that he held the title of tenured Professor, which he did not. Like I said, some people are reading the infobox and not the text, so they perceive POV and accuracy problems. I thought it would simply be worthwhile to repeat both terms in both places, but wedging "professor" into text was awkward. I agree this makes the infobox text less pretty, but that might be worthwhile to reduce confusion and misperception. -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A reader who came here with no preconceived notions or agenda and who had read only the infobox would not make either of the quoted feedback comments. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in modifying the article to humor those who want to push an agenda of denigrating Obama's background or accomplishments. If, OTOH, the comments represented good faith confusion because of the content difference between the infobox and the article text, the appropriate solution might be to modify the article text to clarify that the specific position mentioned is regarded as a professorship by the university, a point which I thought used to be there but, if so, must have been removed somewhere along the way. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nav template

Some of the feedback I've been reading is asking questions that are answered in other articles (like list of books and speeches). I think part of the problem is that {{Barack Obama}} by default is hidden, and requires two unhide clicks to open. As these articles are most directly related to the subject unlike the other templates (these are really subarticles, not merely extensive "see also" lists), I think it would be helpful to readers if this template was by default open. What do you think, and how would we go about changing the layout to do that? -- Beland (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Link to religion conspiracy theory article

I added this link to the bottom of Barack_Obama#Religious_views:

Further information: Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

But this addition was reverted by User:Scjessey with the edit summary: "batshit insane fringe theories not worthy of inclusion in the main article"

Regardless of whether or not the theories have any basis in fact, they are in my opinion clearly are a notable part of the President's biography. According to polls cited in that article, during the 2008 election they were believed by 20% of Americans, and became an issue in the campaign. Clearly Wikipedia finds this topic notable, because we have a whole article on it. This section discusses the President's religious views, and the subarticle directly addresses that topic as well. Other sections link to articles directly addressing subtopics; I don't see why this one shouldn't. When I first read the Barack Obama article, I assumed that this section was the only coverage on the Obama religion controversy; I didn't not know there was a whole article devoted to it. I think the instinct to purge this article of any mention of these unpleasant lies is doing a disservice to readers; the encyclopedia should document the fact that unpleasant lies were a notable issue in this part of this person's life, and not try to make that information hard to find. -- Beland (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another piece of bullshit promoted by Obama's political opponents. As a quality encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should not have to mention this crap. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A conspiracy "theory" does not belong in a biography of the President of the United States, or anyone for that matter. Unless, this "theory" can be proven then it does not belong here.Fjf1085 (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that we should have a link to this article per WP:NPOV and WP:ONEWAY. But I'd also like to state that the fact that something is wrong is not a valid reason for exclusion, but its importance (or lack thereof) is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Law license

So, apparently there is a false rumor circulating on the Internet that Barack and Michelle Obama lost or inactivated their law licenses due to fraud. Some people are arriving at this article either to check that out or are complaining that this "fact" is not mentioned. The existing text in the article made the false rumor sound plausible, especially since it uses the passive voice:

His law license became inactive in 2007.

I changed the article to give a more complete explanation which will hopefully un-confuse our readers:

His law license voluntarily changed status to "inactive" in 2007 and "retired" in 2009. (A false rumor started circulating on the Internet around the time of the 2008 presidential election that Barack and Michelle Obama had done this to avoid ethics charges, but it is typical to do so when not intending to practice law because active status requires continuing education and payment of fees.)

But this addition was reverted by User:Wikidemon with the edit summary "not biographically significant".

I'm not sure why the law license going inactive is worth mentioning at all, if it weren't for the rumor. Personally, I find it rather interesting that not only did people say such things on the Internet, but the rumor was distributed so widely that both Snopes and the Annenburg Public Policy Center found it necessary to write articles debunking it. It's also interesting in terms of both personal history and American political history that this President has actually had several rather nasty false rumors widely spread about him, and it's a bit sad that any mention of any them gets deleted from this article. Will future readers think Barack Obama had an easier time than he really did? -- Beland (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Future readers, one hopes, will respect our encyclopedic approach to biographies. We only have so many words to discuss the entire life of a very prominent person, and so we have to pick and choose, based on principles of how biographical articles are written, relevance to the subject of the article, and the relative importance the sources place on things. There are several articles entirely on the subject of conspiracy theories and political attacks on the President. The routine political attacks on the president in the course of a campaign are more relevant to articles about those campaigns and elections; those that reflect people's uneasy relationship with Obama's skin color and African ancestry and disbelief that someone from his background could achieve what he did go into a line of articles about his public image. They are not all worth mentioning here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So, why are we spending precious words on noting that his law license is inactive, which is apparently routine? Where should this information be moved to? -- Beland (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your intentions over the last few days are admirable but your execution leaves a lot to be desired; please, stop putting so much emphasis on the criticisms found in the article feedback. Obama's presidency has engendered a lot of extremely-far-right fringe hysteria over the years, and these people will never let go of their beliefs, however sincerely held, of various conspiracy theories. Whether it is the place of birth, the law license, the death panels, the terrorism ties, we can't keep putting parenthetical "such-and-such was a false internet rumor" throughout the article. That makes us look less like an encyclopedia and more like a Snopes-like urban legend debunker. The sorts of people leaving these comments will not be appeased by anything you do, any more than the complaints from Muslims about the Muhammad article would ever be assuaged by anything short of total obliteration of all prophet images. Just, let it go. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What about a section near the end of the article collecting factual controversies over facts which mainstream sources consider settled, as is done in the articles Global warming and Evolution? Then the facts are clear and unmuddled, but we're not pretending that the controversies doesn't exist (which makes the article look at best incomplete and at worst biased). -- Beland (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Amplifying nonsense is not Wikipedia's role. Anti-science attacks have been going on for decades and have global significance, hence they are mentioned in appropriate articles. However, a BLP does not contain a list of discredited smears. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Article on African-American heritage of United States presidents

Hopefully this will be the last complaint about untrue claims I find in reader feedback, but I just found out we have an entire article on the subject of African-American heritage of United States presidents. There's at least one feedback complaint that Abraham Lincoln was the first U.S. President with African heritage. This and claims for five other presidents are listed there. This topic seems directly related to the claim of this article that Barack Obama is the first African American President. I'm not sure how I should link there from here without making someone's head explode. Footnote? Add to some nav template? Any advice? -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't. From the article you came across: "None of the claims below has been verified by reliable sources in peer-reviewed publications". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, but apparently they are notable enough that we spend a whole article discussing them. -- Beland (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Notable as whackjob conspiracy theories, nothing more. We don't list the fringe alongside the mainstream, e.g. we'd never have a footnote on Obama's birthplace explaining the birther point-of-view. Discussing them is fine within the context of that article. Not here. Tarc (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the claims about Lincoln may be notable as a conspiracy but that does not in itself mean that it is relevant regarding this article. I am not aware of any mainstream sources that seriously entertain the idea that there were any African-American president before Obama.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

About that article, "Obama's campaign organization and other people said he was born in the U.S." don´t seem to reflect mainstream opinion very well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems to depend on which main stream you choose to be part of. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no mainstream but my mainstream. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When I last checked (and this was a few years ago) there were already hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that related directly to Obama, probably many thousands that mention or link to him. Including a link to each one, much less mentioning the subject, would completely overwhelm this article. We have to stick to things that are significant and on topic. Other things just have to be two clicks away instead of one, but links aren't the only way to organize information. That's what things like categories and the search bar are there for. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this section is unnecessary and does not belong. Just because an article exists on wikipedia does not necessarily mean it is true or a well written article with verified research. It only means that someone (possibly) believes what they wrote and no one has gotten around to actually reviewing it yet.Fjf1085 (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with Fjf1085. I only want to add that the self-identifying must be reasonable. Obama's racial self-identifying is clearly reasonable based on his appearance and that his father was black. SMP0328. (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Off topic

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.

---

Sam Vaknin believes Obama is a narcissist, and the evidence is pretty compelling.

http://www.globalpolitician.com/default.asp?26147-obama-narcissist-white-house-usa/

I believe this important information should be placed prominently into the article, perhaps even in the lede. LudicrousTripe (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a joke right? Right? Gaba ^(talk) 13:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously just trolling. The same user has done it before (with Obama being called "insane" last time). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, got it. Thanks Scjessey. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Broken/Red link in lede

@Hot Stop: Did you mean to do this edit?[6] It re-added a broken/red link to the lede. On the assumption that this edit was accidental/unintentional, I've reverted it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It was unintentional. The correct article link is War in Afghanistan (2001–present) but I accidentally restored a link to the non-existent War in Afghanistan (2001–) (which I'm not creating as a redirect to avoid such confusion. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Should "the first African American to hold the office" (of President of the United States) have a footnote 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 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, 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)

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 Wikipedia'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. @Wilhelm meis: By "footnote", do you mean a cite? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)