Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:49, 30 August 2012

This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

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 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:Stable version

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. 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). Template:WikiProject CD-People

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.

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 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Obama's mother has proven African ancestry

I added a reference to Obama's mother's proven African ancestry, which has been deleted. The confusion here is that it is NOT proven that Obama's Bunch ancestors were descended from John Punch, the so-called "first slave in Virginia." However, it has definitely been proven, by DNA testing, that the male progenitor of Obama's Bunch ancestors was of African ancestry. I earlier posted a link discussing the DNA testing in a section that recently got "fast-track" archived.--Other Choices (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What this mostly displays to me is a far too intense obsession with race. Is it really that big an issue? HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it has definitely been proven, by DNA testing, that we all have African ancestry. Which secondary sources writing about the subject of this article have displayed a significant interest in Obama's distant ancestors? Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

@HiLo48, the article currently reads that Obama's mother was "of mostly English ancestry, along with Scottish, Irish, German, and Swiss." I wanted to add "African" to the list. Should we delete all the others? If not, why not? Why is Obama's mother's Swiss ancestry more noteworthy than her African ancestry? It seems to me that selectively NOT mentioning her African ancestry opens wikipedia editors to the charge of racial bias.

@Johnuniq, your statement about DNA testing distorts the nature of the science involved. The Y Chromosone of Bunch family males goes directly back to sub-Saharan Africa. Regarding your question about which secondary sources have displayed a significant interest in Obama's distant ancestors, the article currently gives five footnotes -- one for each listed ethnic variant of Obama's mother's ancestry. If you want a secondary source that gives a comprehensive listing of Obama's ancestors for six generations, see here. The ancestry of American presidents is always of general interest -- there are countless books, articles, and web pages on the subject. Just google the phrase, "ancestors of U.S. presidents" and you'll see what I mean.

If you want secondary sources that express an interest in Obama's African ancestry on his mother's side, try here with the quote, "There was DNA evidence showing that the Bunches had sub-Saharan African heritage." The source that broke the story is here, with the quote, "Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, has ancestors among the first African-American settlers of Colonial Virginia." And here's another one: "Elizabeth Shown Mills, an expert in Southern genealogy, endorsed Ancestry.com’s conclusion, which was reached using records and DNA analysis." And one more here, with its reference to "DNA evidence showing today's Bunches have sub-Saharan African heritage."--Other Choices (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the family tree having a single black man in it in 1640. I think that is a bit of a time stretch to declare "of African ancestry" for the Dunham family. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read the citations for Obama's ancestry that are already included in the article, we're talking about a single German man from 1729, a single Swiss man from 1690, and a single Scottish man from even earlier, 1607. What's the difference (other than skin color)? Do you think those other references should be removed? If not, why not? If so, why didn't it bother you until now?--Other Choices (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The common American obsession with skin colour and race has bothered me for a very long time. Most references to such things don't belong in a quality encyclopaedia. It's OK to mention the self declared ancestry of an individual, but digging to find obscure racial facts about a person, often with political motives in mind, is quite inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? You seem to be projecting your self-admitted racial concerns onto the discussion of Obama's ancestry. Your phrase "digging to find obscure racial facts about a person" is pure POV. Genealogists dig to see what they might find, and they love interesting stories, and they're a considerable, well-educated part of the population (which means likely to check wikipedia articles), and they're generally curious about both their own ancestral ethnic composition and that of American presidents -- especially by the question, "is he related to me?" Every time there's a new president, his ancestry gets exhaustively researched, because a lot of people are interested. With the Bunch family connection's proven African link, for the first time African-Americans of old southern ancestry can imagine the possibility that they (and not just white Americans) are related to the President.--Other Choices (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make the assertion notable. It's a bit of trivia that Obama's mother never knew, that no-one at suspected until recently, and that therefore has nothing to do with the behavior or beliefs of the subject of this article. That it may be of interest to some people does not make it one of the 50 or 100 most important things to know about Obama. This article is not Every Detail About The Ancestry Of Barack Obama. rewinn (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. Just thought I should mention that. Carry on.Evanh2008 04:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, the applicable guidance here is not WP:NOTABILITY, but WP:WEIGHT. How much space in the article (if any) does this deserve with reference to what is notable in the subject's life? Probably not more than a footnote, but that's just my opinion. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Rewinn, your points also apply to Obama's mother's Swiss and Scottish ancestry. Why should those get mentioned and not her African ancestry? Perhaps you will be willing to answer this question.
@Wilhelm Meis, I agree, just a footnote. I added exactly one word ("African"), with a footnote, to the existing list of ethnic origins of Ann Dunham. My edit got first modified (inaccurately) and then deleted. What disturbs me about this situation is the apparent double standard, together with the "racial issue" that two editors are inclined to make of this point.--Other Choices (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The relationship is far removed, the matter has received little mainstream media coverage (it was a thing for a day) and it isn't at all significant in a biography of Obama's entire life. Most of this ancestry crap can safely be removed and folded (where appropriate) into Family of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see... as soon as it becomes obvious that there is no logical reason to exclude "African" from the list, you want to remove the whole list. Whether intentional or not, your approach gives the impression of racial bias -- it reminds me of the southern restaurant back in the 1960s that decided to close its doors instead of desegregating and serving black people.--Other Choices (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Other Choices is right. Either add African to the list, or remove it entirely. If there was not a problem with the list being there before African was added, why is it an issue now? AutomaticStrikeout 02:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been very involved in this article in the pats, but it's been on my watchlist for years and I just wanted to point out that I fully support either adding African to the list or removing all minor components of the list entirely. It's an absurd double-standard to list one single-individual ancestry trait and not another. Evanh2008 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree; if Other Choices is correct and Obama's maternal ancestry, going back hundreds of years, is entirely English except for a German man from 1729, a Swiss man from 1690, and a Scotsman man from 1607 (assuming that this is true) then describing it as just "predominantly English" or somesuch would be in order, I'd say. Herostratus (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Other Choices - I've never been in favor of all the ancestry crap, particularly the category creep aspect of it. We have an article, Family of Barack Obama, where this stuff could conceivably belong. I know Republicans like to talk about Obama's ancestry to make him sound "exotic" and unusual. Your response to my previous comment above sounds awfully like you are accusing me of being a racist. I expect your next comment to confirm it was not your intention to make me sound like a racist. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- Although an interesting tidbit, why is it important enough to include into his article here? I don't think it is. One reason is because the term used to describe the connection are “strongly suggests”. Obama is already listed as an African American, so why would it be important to include this tidbit here? I also do quite a bit if genealogical research with ancestry.com, and find the sources and records fascinating. But the years of research also allows me to understand that there is a lot of guess work involved once one delves into older records. Especially in middle America in the early 1800's. So I think this fails inclusion on several levels. Thanks Dave Dial (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Completely irrelevant. Did Obama's mother know this? Was that side of his family ever treated the way blacks are treated? Did they have anything to do with either Africa or the slave-experience? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Include. I am in favour of adding this bit of info, which was reported in hundreds of publications around the world. It's worth a sentence, and the New York Times is available as a source. JN466 12:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Jayen's point makes sense, as does Other Sources (if we include ancestry in this article, we include this). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Hard to imagine we're even considering this, it's a piece of trivia and clearly not relevant to the life and times of Obama. For anyone who hasn't been around much, the ancestry trivia game makes for flow news day fodder but not good encyclopedic articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Exclude - First, I urge WP:AGF and not commenting on editors' motives. Second, it seems a valuable exercise to figure out why one possible 17th-century ancestor has less WP:WEIGHT than another; I think the key distinction is that DNA ancestry and cultural ancestry are different things. All evidence is that Dunham knew nothing of possible African ancestry, and thought of herself as being of Euro ancestry only. Within that Euro ancestry she apparently understood Scots and whatnot; that is the cultural heritage she passed on to the subject of this article, and not that implied by her DNA. Third, why mention Scot if her Scot ancestor left Scotland before her possible African ancestor left Africa? The answer is that she evidently knew of the Scot heritage, but not the African heritage. Fourth, to the argument that the Scot/Germain/English/African details of who-lived-where in the 17th century has very little WP:WEIGHT, I must agree, on the grounds that the subject of this article doesn't seem to have been much affected by whether his mother had Scots ancestry vs. that of any other nation, but only Euro vs. African. It is all the more telling that on that latter point he and we all may have been in ignorance. Unless there's evidence that the subject of this article did or felt something significant about ancestry that far back, "mostly English" would seem to be more than enough detail. rewinn (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• To put this issue to rest (hopefully), I am going to endorse Rewinn's suggestion that we cut the ancestry sentence back to "mostly English," and I'm going to endorse Scjessey's earlier suggestion that the remaining ancestry stuff (with several footnotes that I think are interesting) be moved to the Family of Barack Obama article, together with the African reference. @Scjessey, it was definitely not my intention to make you sound like a racist. Rather, it was my intention to bring to the attention of all wikipedia editors that discussion of this issue had strayed into a racially-charged danger zone. I hope you can just chalk it up to experience that, basically, you stepped on a "politically correct" landmine. Another editor did something similar earlier in the discussion. I have no reason to doubt that all of the editors currently active on this page tend to be respectful toward the U.S. presidency in general and President Obama in particular. But sometimes sincerely-meant remarks can come across in a very different light, depending on the context and the audience.--Other Choices (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• I also endorse Rewinn's suggestion of "mostly English" which is more than sufficient for this article, as well as Scjessey's suggestion that the more elaborate ancestry details be moved to Family of Barack Obama (African reference included).--JayJasper (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support cutting back, and I was going to just make the edit per apparent consensus here, but it has to be done correctly and I got a bit nervous about the reference. The text reads "...and was of mostly English ancestry," but ref 7 just says "for Stanley Ann's first name, see Obama (1995, 2004), p. 19." which is referring to Dreams from My Father. Has anyone got the book handy—what does page 19 verify? What page verifies "mostly English"? While it's pretty obvious, I don't see a reliable source for "mostly English" here or at Ann Dunham. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm working from an unnumbered pdf file, but searching for England and English, the only relevant hit occurs on the 11th converted page (for comparison, the comment about his mother being named Stanley because her father wanted a son is on the 15th converted page):

Sure-but would you let your daughter marry one?

The fact that my grandparents had answered yes to this question, no matter how grudgingly, remains an enduring puzzle to me. There was nothing in their background to predict such a response, no New England transcendentalists or wild-eyed socialists in their family tree. True, Kansas had fought on the Union side of the Civil War; Gramps liked to remind me that various strands of the family contained ardent abolitionists. If asked, Toot would turn her head in profile to show off her beaked nose, which, along with a pair of jet-black eyes, was offered as proof of Cherokee blood. But an old, sepia-toned photograph on the bookshelf spoke most eloquently of their roots. It showed Toot’s grandparents, of Scottish and English stock, standing in front of a ramshackle homestead, unsmiling and dressed in coarse wool, their eyes squinting at the sun-baked, flinty life that stretched out before them. Theirs were the faces of American Gothic, the WASP bloodline’s poorer cousins, and in their eyes one could see truths that I would have to learn later as facts: that Kansas had entered the Union free only after a violent precursor to the Civil War, the battle in which John Brown’s sword tasted first blood; that while one of my great-great-grandfathers, Christopher Columbus Clark, had been a decorated Union soldier, his wife’s mother was rumored to have been a second cousin of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy; that although another distant ancestor had indeed been a full-blooded Cherokee, such lineage was a source of considerable shame to Toot’s mother, who blanched whenever someone mentioned the subject and hoped to carry the secret to her grave.

Don't know if this helps at all though. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Another possibility is to mention his mother's putative African ancestor under Barack_Obama#Family_and_personal_life, which already contains a wide-ranging discussion. Given how widely this item was publicised, readers would expect a mention of it somewhere in the article. At any rate, right now we still have the German and Swiss ancestors mentioned ... --JN466 14:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If we really need to do the ethnicity/nationality/race/skin colour/whatever else, then all should be included. However, I find those descriptions as nothing more than an irrelevant and unnecessary irritant in any article that has them -- especially for bios of people born and raised in the US. •Jim62sch• 18:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude: Information is trivial at best. Lighthead...KILLS!! 02:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Describing mother and father

• Barack Obama#Early life and career – section with text in question
• Ann Dunham – article on mother
• Barack Obama, Sr. – article on father
• "unnumbered pdf file" – search for this text to see extract (immediately above) from Dreams from My Father with text on England/English (from Fat&Happy 15:58, 25 August 2012)
• Text currently in article (with references removed for simplicity):

  Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at Kapiʻolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (now Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children) in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is the first President to have been born in Hawaii. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born in Wichita, Kansas, and was of mostly English ancestry, along with Scottish, Irish, German, and Swiss. His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya.

It looks like there is agreement to cut back the description of Obama's mother, and put the details in her article. I can see why people would want to mention Obama's African ancestry from his mother's side, but I think that should be discussed as a separate issue (no one really cares if his mother had a single African ancestor from 1640, so whether it is DUE to mention the conclusion regarding Obama is another question). I'm having trouble deciding what the text should be, and am thinking it would be a lot easier to discuss some proposals here rather than discuss-by-edit-summary while editing the very complex and slow wikitext in the article.

I don't see any good reference regarding "mostly English" (although the image in her article makes that a reasonable conclusion). However the mother was born in the US to parents who were born in the US, so "American" seems a more reasonable description—does the issue of her ultimate ancestry warrant consideration in this article?. One problem with wording is to achieve a balance between what is said about each parent. Could it all be cut back to just "American" and "African" (with details in the linked articles)?

I also suggest removing "Stanley" from the text—that's not even in the title of the article, and I don't see a suggestion that the issue is of any relevance to Obama. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the quote that Fat&Happy provided, Ann Dunham was of mostly Scottish and English ancestry (the quote implied Native American ancestry, too). We could use that reference, and in the footnote simply mention that other details of Obama's ancestry are in the Family of Barack Obama article.

However, I'm inclined to disagree with those who think this is "trivial" -- I think it's archetypal, and would support a specific mention of Obama's African-American ancestry in this article if other editors agree and if it's possible to mention in a fragment of a sentence. The problem with simply saying "American" ancestry is that it just isn't done in biographical sketches, and it's the type of thing that gets some Native Americans up in arms. I hope I'm not going too far with the whole "politically correct" thing, but my understanding is that cultural sensitivity is an important goal for wikipedia editors. And also, many people are interested in ethnic origins -- McKinley was Scottish, Kennedy was Irish, Eisenhower was German, etc. I agree on removing the word "Stanley" from the text.--Other Choices (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Other Choices about this being archetypical rather than trivial. Cf. commentaries like these: "The researcher's conclusions are not ironclad. But even if Obama turns out not to be related to Punch -- which is highly unlikely -- researchers have established beyond doubt that Dunham's family has black ancestry that almost certainly can be traced back to American slaves. Which means that Obama is more black than we imagined. A familiar kind of black." That is why it was reported all over the world. Here for example dozens of reports in the German-language press: We'll just look silly if we don't mention it. JN466 13:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I was hoping for concrete proposals as the wording escapes me, and it's too tedious to go back-and-forth with edit/revert in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely there is going to be any consensus to include the material at all because of weight / trivia and relevancy concerns. A number of editors are staunchly opposed to adding any "gee whiz" ancestry stuff. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How about just trimming the two descriptions for now (I can't think of a good way to mention Obama's African ancestry from his mother's side), like this:

Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at Kapiʻolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (now Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children) in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is the first President to have been born in Hawaii. His mother, Ann Dunham, was born in Wichita, Kansas, and was of mostly English ancestry. His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Kenya.

I am using ref here so it shows up in the reflist below.

References

1. ^ "Certificate of Live Birth: Barack Hussein Obama II, August 4, 1961, 7:24 pm, Honolulu" (PDF). Department of Health, State of Hawaii. The White House. April 27, 2011. Retrieved April 27, 2011.
2. Maraniss, David (August 24, 2008). "Though Obama had to leave to find himself, it is Hawaii that made his rise possible". The Washington Post. p. A22. Retrieved October 28, 2008.
3. Nakaso, Dan (December 22, 2008). "Twin sisters, Obama on parallel paths for years". The Honolulu Advertiser. p. B1. Retrieved January 22, 2011.
4. Rudin, Ken (December 23, 2009). "Today's Junkie segment On TOTN: a political review Of 2009". Talk of the Nation (Political Junkie blog). NPR. Retrieved April 18, 2010. We began with the historic inauguration on January 20—yes, the first president ever born in Hawaii
5. Obama (1995, 2004), p. 12.

The text "It showed Toot’s grandparents, of Scottish and English stock..." is on page 12 in a paperback edition of Dreams, but it refers only to Ann Dunham's mother and is not exactly "mostly English". Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Much better. What does it say instead of mostly English? Lighthead 04:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It says what is in my "...Scottish and English..." quote (searching for that text on this page shows a larger extract given earlier). Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Deficits

I am going to be away from this article for a couple of weeks. I started a section on this. I believe something along these lines should be included. If it is going to go into the article soon, someone else will need to carry the ball from here. I believe there should also be a graph, similar to what there is for the Clinton surpluses in the Bill Clinton article. William Jockusch (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Budget Deficits

The U.S. Federal Deficit topped $1 trillion in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 fiscal years. Press reports indicate that it is expected to do so again in 2012. The budget or deficits have been described as "unsustainable" by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and by a group of 10 ex-chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisors.

References

1. "U.S. budget deficit totals $974B through July".
2. Trumbull, Mark. "Obama national debt plan: Will it all come down to taxes?".
3. Schroeder, Peter. "Bernanke asks Congress to get serious about 'unsustainable' fiscal path". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=, |2=, and |3= (help)
4. "Unsustainable budget threatens nation". {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

William Jockusch (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I slightly refactored the above to make it clearer that it is text proposed by William Jockusch. The deficit is a major concern, but there would need to be good sources showing the relationship between the person (the subject of this article) and the deficits. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this proposal is. The budget deficit reflects the ratio between revenues and spending and Congress controls both of those, not Obama. Newt Gingrich, for example, claimed the balanced budget of the Clinton era was because of the Republican-controlled Congress of the time. This really has nothing to do with Obama's biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the budget deficits are controlled by Congress, so they are not directly relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama (though obliquely relevant because this has been a problem he has had to address), but totally irrelevant to the biography of the person. I see no need to discuss budget deficits at this article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Deficits are mentiomed the biographies of G W Bush, Clinton, G H W Bush and Ronald Reagan to various degrees. •Jim62sch• 18:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So? What happens in other articles is a matter for them. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And I would think for NPOV to be true in the purest sense, we should be consistent, regardless of political opinion. •Jim62sch• 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a long-standing understanding that (translated to the terminology of the current issue), whether article X discusses deficits is not relevant when considering if article Y should discuss deficits (perhaps X is wrong, or perhaps there are particular reasons, or whatever; see WP:OSE). The bottom line is that whether deficits should be mentioned here depends on policies (such as WP:DUE) considered for this article, without any concern about what other articles have. Anyone wanting the deficits material here needs to engage with the comments above (such as "deficits are controlled by Congress, so they are not directly relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama (though obliquely relevant because this has been a problem he has had to address), but totally irrelevant to the biography" from Wilhelm Meis). Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if the deficit was directly related to Obama, this being a summary style article (unlike the others mentioned) it would need to pass the very strictest interpretations of WP:WEIGHT and WP:REL to make it in. While the deficit is tangentially related to the activities of presidents (they can express a desire to lower or raise it), it is strictly controlled by the legislative branch. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The deficits are relevant to Obama for two reasons: First, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. . Second and more importantly, if a problem threatens the nation, as pretty much everyone seems to agree that this one does, the President has a responsibility to lead the nation to find a solution to the problem. -- William Jockusch, not signed in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.146.7 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the deficits are relevant to Obama. It's whether they're relevant to his biography. The text above as proposed doesn't mention Obama's relation to it at all. In any case, in relation to the whole of his biography, his role (or lack thereof) in the federal deficit is quite small and shouldn't be given undue weight. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the discussion should focus on whether the reliable sources tie the budget deficits to Obama. How much control the president wields over such things (campaign promises, policy proposal, and veto power versus the fact that Congress writes the laws) seems beyond the scope of a Talk discussion unless we let the sources speak for themselves. What do you guys think? Wookian (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it's clear the deficit is not the responsibility of the president, but of Congress. This discussion needs to move to other articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but others obviously disagree. If Obama promised to reduce the deficit then presumably he also is among those who disagree with your opinion. And if he campaigned on a promise of reducing the deficit, then success or failure of that initiative seems noteworthy in relation to his biography. Wookian (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is a bit surreal. Are we seriously suggesting that there are no reliable sources which connect Obama with the budget? Or that Obama has never signed (or vetoed) a bill regarding the budget? Who would have thunk that chief executive of a country has absolutely nothing to do with that country's government's spending?

BTW, I take no opinion about this particular section. Maybe it's appropriate; maybe it's not. But the assertion that Obama has nothing to do with the budget is...well...ridiculous. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Executive branch sets the agenda, but it is the Legislative branch that writes the laws and controls the supply of money. I'm not saying the president isn't tangentially involved in the budget, but that role is far less significant than the role of Congress. And in terms of a biography of Barack Obama, it is most certainly not significant enough to be worthy of text in this article. Perhaps in Political positions of Barack Obama and Economic policy of Barack Obama, but not here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see what the issue is. Like any matter of federal legislation, Congress passes and the administration signs or vetoes and then implements. The President has a lot of leverage, and in the case of budgets he usually makes proposals for Congress to act on (e.g. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget). Thus, the press and the public associate the President with the budget process, and consider it one of the primary job functions. The Presidency is the most significant fact of Obama's life, and the budget (and its deficit) is one of the most significant issues of the Presidency, it seems pretty obvious that this should be mentioned. Like everything else about the office it's subject to politicization: competing agendas, and finger-pointing when there is a bad result. The politics of the matter, if important, are part of the story, and we can present that objectively, from a neutral point of view. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Citation 271 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/americas/06iht-poll.4.19983290.html?_r=1

The information in the source does not support the information in the wikipedia article. The poll only included responders from Western Europe and United States. This cannot be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add

• Ladies and Gentlemen, The President of The United States (photo)

to the External Links section!--217.230.239.244 (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:ELNO.--JayJasper (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you see other examples of that edit in your travels, please note them here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 28 August 2012

In the section on his religious belief it might help to understand something of how2 his religious beliefs influence his policies by noting that he is an avid reader of Reinhold Niebuhr, whom he has quoted more often than his predicessors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.58.145 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We need reliable sources that support this claim, and they would need to be in sufficient number and scope to make it pass the WP:WEIGHT test in order to make it into this already-very-long article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama's Assassination of a U.S. Citizen

(posts refers to this edit)

Okey dokey. What are the objections of substance? Thanks-- Settdigger (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it belong sin the lead. There might be room for mentioning something similar somewhere in the body of the article (not sure where, though). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Why not? It's pretty darned important in terms of World History, arguably far, far, far more important than any "trade deals" Obama made which appear higher in the lead. So: the question is: if you're not sure "where" it should go, what are you sure about vis a vis Obama, his assassination of an American citizen, and wikipedia's reflection of that fact? I'll bet you dollars to donuts, Choyool, that historians will remember and write about that assassination much, much, much, much longer and in much, much, much more detail than any trade deals. In fact, you've convinced me. In terms of importance, it trumps the trade deals. Objections? Thanks-- Settdigger (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD, e.g. the lead is supposed to be a brief summary of what is said in the body of the article. What historians will write in the future is not for us to determine (WP:CRYSTAL). I am not too heavily involved in writing this article, so I'd delegate that to others to give some pointers as to where exactly it could go or be mentioned (if at all). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Settdigger, there's no need to be vitriolic about this. There's a really important technical reason it can't be in the lead: Because the lead is supposed to be a summarization of the highlights of the article. In terms of importance, I don't think it belongs there because in terms of coverage, it doesn't appear to have sufficient weight compared to other parts of his biography. However, as Seb mentioned above, it probably has a place elsewhere. You might also consider adding it to Presidency of Barack Obama as this directly relates to his actions as President. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 07:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you have strong opinions, but you're not "heavily involved." All right. What is a lead? an introduction. Is a lead always a summary of what appears below? Maybe in high school essays. Not in professional writing. Also, I agree with you wholeheartedly, I am not only not interested in determining what future historians will write, because it's impossible, I have no idea what they will write, nor do you, for sure. But we can make educated guesses, can't we? For a president, the wiki page it's a lot more than a bio page. It's a piece of history. And guess what: we're obviously historians too.

One's man's vitriol is another man's passion. Settdigger (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to have a discussion on changing Misplaced Pages's manual of style, you can do so @ WP:MOS, not here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. Also, a more historical page in which the material would probably fit better is Presidency of Barack Obama. Certainly, the material doesn't belong in the lead here (WP:UNDUE, WP:LEAD) - whether it deserves a mention in the body of the article is something that can be discussed here. Merely re-inserting it will lead to it being reverted (please also see WP:EW). Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

First off, a lead is what you read in WP:LEAD, always. It's not like a lede in a piece of journalism or a historical biography. Secondly, I'll empahsize again that no, we really can't make educated guesses on what news may or may not be important, particularly when it comes to writing about the biography of a living person. Again, this is because of WP:CRYSTAL. We're not saying your educated guess is wrong, but we are saying that it does not have strong coverage presently. Like I said, there are other places where this information might be appropriate and would easily be found by interested persons. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 08:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that neither page mentions the assassination. Clearly, the assassination needs to be mentioned in both.

Clearly, despite a curious discussion of "technical reasons" and "what historians might do," we do have an obligation to reflect historical fact.

Now:

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."

Okay:

This is the paragraph that immediately precedes my proposed edit:

As president, Obama signed economic stimulus legislation in the form of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 in response to the 2007–2009 recession in the United States. Other major domestic policy initiatives include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, and the Budget Control Act of 2011. In foreign policy, Obama ended US military involvement in the Iraq War, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, signed the New START arms control treaty with Russia, ordered U.S. military involvement in Libya, and ordered the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. In May 2012, he became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly support legalizing same-sex marriage.

Is his assassination less important than all of those? The paragraph is in chronological order it would appear, so my putting the assassination at the bottom, makes a certain amount of sense, since it was reported after the gay marriage thing, I believe. HOWEVER: Obama assasinated the man in 2011, so arguably it should go before the gay marriage mention.

− −

Your thoughts? Settdigger (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

2 more points re: "undue weight" and your mention of a "more historical page."

Hmm. The first one is certainly a complex issue. However: and I must underline this point. it is NOT ENOUGH to cite a wikipedia custom with an acronym as though it is Bible and thus ignore the underlying issues we are discussing. Please MAKE AN ARGUMENT do not cite style manuals. As to which page is "the more historical." Guess what, they're both historical. Equally so, more or less.

So: I'll wait till this time tomorrow to repost my edits, as I need some sleep. Please take my comments into consideration, especially about citing Misplaced Pages manuals of style. Straight talk is a great watchword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settdigger (talk • contribs) 08:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

sorry: changed my mind. It is offensive, even though I know and you know that the New York Times is a rag after Valerie Plain, to refer to a historical event reported in the New York Times as somehow related to WP:CRYSTAL. Guess what, I Jethrobot, it's not unverifiable speculation. We're not imagining it in a crystal ball. It's the New York Times. If Obama didn't have an American shot, Neil Armstrong didn't land on the moon. You understand what I'm saying to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settdigger (talk • contribs) 08:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the BRD citation. As long as we're citing chapter and verse: WP:BRD-NOT. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. God bless good old Goethe.

Cheers-- Settdigger (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why just throwing policy pages at you might not be helpful. It's a bad habit, and I apologize. So, here we go with straight talk instead. I still might cite policy pages, but explain the relevant parts in text instead.

• I note that neither page mentions the assassination. Clearly, the assassination needs to be mentioned in both. Maybe in both, but we still need to come to consensus on that, which is why we have these discussions. I think it certainly belongs on Presidency of Barack Obama, because per some of your sources, these decisions seemed to involve others in his presidency like John O. Brennan and Thomas E. Donilon. I think it might also belong on here, possibly under Foreign Policy, but I also think more people need to weigh in on the issue.
• I'd like to first point out that I never said this whole assassination issues is unverifiable. It certainly is. So, here's the deal with undue weight. What we do is not primarily the work of historians-- we're writers of an encyclopedia. We're not here to take a stand on what issues on what events will or will not be of historical importance. We're here to reflect how significantly a viewpoint on a subject is covered in the present. The issue of assassination needs to be covered in the article based on how widely/often it is discussed by reliable sources, like news articles / news blogs you've used in relation to this subtopic. Undue weight can be given to a certain set of information in lots of ways, like the number of words, its placement in the article, and how it is placed in relation to other statements. We believe that placing this in the lead constitutes undue weight because 1) It's not part of the summary in the article (and needs to be, because that's the purpose of a lead on Misplaced Pages articles), and 2) Your opinion on what is (or is not) important (for history or otherwise) is not a valid reason for inclusion or where something belongs. It is all based on the level of coverage.

Jeth, the thing about insinuation is: it's subtle. It's one of those clever things you can do in life. See, when I say: where was your mother last night? I'm not saying anything about her sexual practices. It was only a question, man. I think you understand. When you say WP:CRYSTAL WP:IAMTHEBIBLE and then say nothing else, you are very clearly suggesting that history never happened. So thank you for getting a little goddamned nervous over that. I could just drop little WP:CRYSTAL and WP:INSPIREDBYJEHOVAH into little sections of your proposed edits, and then claim, just like you, that I never said it was unverifiable.

So. Due vs. undue weight. Down below here, someone suggest

• I don't think WP:BRD-NOT applies here. We gave you policy-based reasons why we reverted you (multiple times), and tried to help you not violate the three-revert rule by asking you to come here. You should also note what it says at WP:BRD-NOT:

Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus.

This is particularly important when it comes to articles of Featured-article quality.

• Finally, I would advise against simply adding the material back in tomorrow before you, me, and other editors reach a consensus. You may be blocked from editing if you do not wait for this consensus to build. As I'm sure you know, this is a highly watched article, and a lot of editors will want to weight in.

Anyway, I hope I did a better job of presenting my arguments. I acknowledge you might disagree with them, and I welcome your response. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 09:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Setdigger makes a valid point about the relative importance of the events in Obama's presidency listed in the lead. The entire paragraph "As president, Obama signed... ...first sitting U.S. president to publicly support legalizing same-sex marriage." should be moved down to the #Presidency section, and the referenced content on his being the first US president known to have ordered the assassination of a US citizen should be added there. Lone boatman (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, God. And thank you, kybernetes. The price of wisdom is above rubies, Black Kite. God bless you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settdigger (talk • contribs) 08:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Slow down, please. We have a way of presenting articles that's codified in the manual of style. That's not going to change on an ad-hoc basis for any particular article. The proposed material is far outside the boundary of acceptable encyclopedic content that it's pointless to attempt a serious discussion about whether it should be included. It won't. If you'll listen patiently, some of the experienced editors might try to explain it to you. One point is debatable, that the extrajudicial targeted killing (calling it an assassination is imprecise and politically charged) of Anwar al-Awlaki (not "an American Citizen" but this particular person) is significant enough to the scope of the life of Obama that it should be mentioned in his biography. I believe this has been considered and rejected. Sure, the constitutional and historical dimension of killing an American (as opposed to the hundreds of non-Americans targeted, and at least several Americans killed who were not the intended targets) is a world event of at least moderate significance, just not important enough to make it into this article. One nice thing about Misplaced Pages is that it has millions of pages, and a place for almost anything that's worth noting. There is some discussion of this on the Anwar al-Aulaqi page. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(responding to Lone boatman after edit conflict) Agreed that the gay marriage thing is not significant enough to be in the lede. Even if gay rights is sufficiently important to be a lede-worthy topic, Obama's support for it has not had any practical implications yet. However, every one of these items is more significant than the killing of one particular militant in the anti-terrorism campaign. They are all big policy issues that affected vast numbers of people and changed history, and stand out as some of the major things Obama did as President, as opposed to a critique about the legitimacy of a particular action. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that every one of those items is more significant than the killing, nor with the description of its context as an anti-terrorism campaign. You and I might, but that's not the point. The relative importance of all of the events is a matter of point of view, so to maintain WP:NPOV the achievements of his presidency should be listed in the presidency section, and not the lead. Lone boatman (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I'm just stating my opinion, but people do agree, in that we have a consensus version of the lede right now. It's subject to change but that's what the editors have chosen to put there. NPOV doesn't require us to omit his Presidential career, or any other part of his life from the lede, just because we have to make choices about what is significant enough to put there. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As a newbie here who's old enough to know a thing or two, I would like to reiterate again that citing Misplaced Pages chapter and verse is counterproductive. Let's stick to the substantive matters, it's much more professional. Guidelines are helpful, but it's up to us, not our "bible."

So. We moved rapidly in this dicussion from "assassination" to "extrajudicial targeted killing" to "killing of one particular militant." Oh my god, you mean, words can be politically charged? Goddamn, I knew there was a reason I paid attention to them.

Do we remember the "Health Forests Initiative"? We go great board-feet out of that one.

Settdigger (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we have rules for a reason. It would be silly to argue the substance of why the rules exist every time someone wants to do something that breaks the rules. So to your request that we avoid basing our arguments on Misplaced Pages policy, I respectfully decline. And no, assassination != extrajudicial killing. That's more than obvious. Here's a source on the subject that points out that what happened was a targeted killing (the specific, neutral description) and that calling it an assassination (a broader, politically charged category) is a value judgment made by critics. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem using "extrajudicial killing" in place of "assassination" in the text. I've made the change, with a link. Lone boatman (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed material is inappropriate for quite a few reasons. Changing that phrase only makes it even more awkward. Obama did not "admit" to anything, for example, and noting that he was the first president is an NPOV violation because it's inserting an argument in place of a simple reporting of the event. Before we even get there, we can search the talk archives but I don't think there's any consensus to mention the subject at all in this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gee, demon, what are the "rules"? Are they "your" "rules"? Or are they in fact guidelines? Let's stick to the substance.

Let's not talk about "targeted killings" vs "assasinations" just yet, because you just DELETED ALL OUR WORK. So maybe you could have changed the nomenclature first, and we could have talked about it.

A "value judgment". See, if I blow away your grandpa, and I'm the POTUS, it's not a "value judgment." It's an assassination. Guess what? Words mean things.

As to Obama's "admission": it's a passive admission, granted. But it's as good as.

Question for group: when is "consensus" reached? There are a lot of Americans.

Settdigger (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with how many Americans there are? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Are non-Americans allowed to have an opinion? HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Are rhetorical questions anisotropic? Clearly what I should have said was: when is "consensus" reached? There are a lot of humans. Since I'm a newbie, perhaps someone less green could give me an idea of how it has been reached on important articles in the past.Settdigger (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion -- it doesn't belong in this article, but it does deserve a one-sentence mention in the Presidency of Barack Obama article because it is a sort of milestone, but mainstream reliable sources simply didn't make a big deal about it, so we shouldn't either. Of course, if it suddenly becomes a big campaign issue, then we'll probably have to reconsider.--Other Choices (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. The one sentence mention. What should the one sentence be? Ah. I like how, in one moment, Misplaced Pages is this easily navigated and understood document, readily outlined and dilineated by OUR HOLY BIBLE (of guidelines). In the next breath, it is revealed to me that Misplaced Pages only reflects the opinions and slants of "mainstream reliable sources." Now, I grant you, wikipedia is value-neutral, or tries to be. This is significantly different from merely being an echo chamber of "mainstream reliable sources." It's one thing to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet. And it's another to blindly follow like sheep whatever your Daddy Government tells you.

Now: Mother Jones made a big deal about it. So did, wait for it:

THE NEW YORK TIMES.

I know. They're just this newspaper, or something.

And yes, clearly only "big campaign issues" deserve Misplaced Pages mention. Damn, I saw Obama eat a live baby at dinner the other day! See, it didn't become a campaign issue, it was only reported in half of all newspapers on Earth. Nah, no Misplaced Pages mention.

Settdigger (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

reformatting

most of the objection seems to be about the placement and weight. those who object to the material being in the lead, or the length, please submit a sandbox of where and how you think the material best fits. I doubt we will ever get 100% consensus on any addition, i will restore the edit after you have had time to submit your improved edit, which would have been the preferred action to section blanking. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No sandbox necessary, the information does not fit because of weight concerns so there is no point trying to improve the wording. Please do not edit war as that is why we have a consensus process. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

i made no edits, please retract your accusation of edit warring. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It has no place in this or any other Misplaced Pages article, as all it amounts to is a highly biased and slanted take on the current "War on Terror". Tarc (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If you'll allow argument by example: Tarc's statements have no place on Misplaced Pages or any other forum of human communication, as all he amounts to is a fount of biased and slanted takes in the current "Nazi Takeover of Earth by Nazis." Now that's we've got that over with. Does anyone read the New York Times? Settdigger (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's my proposal. I welcome a substantive discussion. User:Settdigger/sandbox
Settdigger (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article review candidates
• 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 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
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press