Jump to content

User talk:CouldOughta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arguments for Not Calling Barack Obama "Black" or "African-American"

[edit]

He's not African-American, he's Mulatto/Biracial/Mixed, so we should call him that.

African American includes people who are of mixed race. It includes people whose African ancestors were not slaves (despite disagreement from some race theorists). It includes Americans whose African ancestors were not Americans. It includes Barack Obama. And it is used by the overwhelming majority of our reliable sources.

Mulatto is a more precise term, so we should use it.

Mulatto means a person of mixed white and black ancestry, often meaning 50% white and 50% black, but also can refer to a person with black and white mixed in any ratio[1]. It also includes non-Americans. Thus it is not more precise. It also is considered demeaning by many[2]. African-American is used by the overwhelming majority of our reliable sources.

Biracial/Multiracial/Mixed/Mixed-Race is a more precise term, so we should use it.

These terms also include racial mixes among Asians, Indigenous Australians, Eskimos, and depending how you define race, Latinos, plus others. African American only includes descendants of black Africans (Yes, the term excludes white South Africans and North African Arabs and so on.) So African American is the more precise term. Plus, it is used by the overwhelming majority of our reliable sources.


Person of African Descent/Afro-Caucasian/Luo-American/Other Term I Prefer is a more precise / better term, so we should use it.

Note that there is no Wikipedia page for Person of African Descent, Afro-Caucasian, Luo-American, Other Term I Prefer, and so on. This is just a clue that the term you prefer is not superior to African American, which is a term known and understood by the overwhelming majority of English-speakers. Plus, it is used by the overwhelming majority of our reliable sources.

African-American mixes a continent with a country! We should call him Kenyan-American.

First part right, second part wrong. Barack Obama's election would still be just as historic/noteworthy if he were a Ugandan-American. It's his being African-American (which he undoubtedly is) that makes this all a big deal. That's why the overwhelming majority of our reliable sources use the term.

We shouldn't call him African American just because he calls himself that.

We don't. Quite the opposite: if he called himself white, we'd still call him African American, if the overwhelming majority of our reliable sources continued to use the term. Self-identification as African American only would be the determinant if the matter was otherwise indeterminable. (For an example, see G._K._Butterfield, whose effective race is pretty much the result of him picking one (not legally, perhaps, but effectively, judging by the photo.))


References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Mulatto". Dictionary.com. Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. Retrieved 2008-06-04.
  2. ^ "Le Chevalier de Saint-Georges (1745-1799)". Retrieved 2008-07-31.

/// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\

So, if I look up 'reliable source' in a dictionary, it will say "a source which reports something demonstrably false (or half-truth at best), but that doesn't matter because everyone else goes along with it". Also, you've missed out the argument that calling him black is an insult to his mother and her ancestors, as their involvement in him (which is FAR more significant to his success than that of his absent alcoholic father) is erased from history. Your last point overlooks the fact that a Kenyan-American and Ugandan-American is by definition black. And those links of yours are a disgrace to Wikipedia.--MartinUK (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the argument, in a nutshell, is:

We shouldn't call him African-American; it completely negates his mother's role, which was much more important than his father's.

And my first attempt at a rebuttal would be:

The term African American is neutral on whether the person has some or no non-African heritage. Although whether or not a person is African American has a strong influence on his or her life, the term itself is a value-neutral classification (or perhaps better, "categorization").

I'd add two things.

First, since African-American is a term that characterizes a person's biological heritage, the relative role of one parent's contribution is raising the person is not relevant.

Second, I'm not particularly happy with the links myself; I coped them from the African American page. I thought they were passable for a user talk page. CouldOughta (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\ /// \\\


Welcome

[edit]

Hello, CouldOughta, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tezuka

[edit]

By all means, I checked each one and wasn't sure which was unhelpful. Be bold! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lerner and Hillary

[edit]

I've added mention on Lerner's article about the influence on Hillary, but I'm not much familiar with either Lerner or Tikkun, so if you know more about this, you should do editing on it yourself. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Polarizing Figure

[edit]

I agree, and I actually tried to always use the "effect" form or the "response" form in referring to the academic conclusions. I left the "polarizing figure" phrase in for popular media references (since that's how it's meant by them) and the direct quote from the academic verifying conventional wisdom. Will revisit this again when I do the rework. Nothing is easy ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

I can email you several photos if you like and tell you more about it. Let me have your email adress. --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas on the President-elect article!

[edit]
Bright Idea Award
Bright Idea Award

For your insightful suggestions that improved President-elect of the United States, [1] [2], I award you The Bright Idea Barnstar. -Modocc (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin edit surely intended for tak page

[edit]

I moved your comment to the talk page here: Talk:Sarah Palin#Can't tell where this sentence is going. VP campaign. Please remember or be careful not to post talk page comments in article space as you surely did only by mistake.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

[edit]

Hey. I screwed up. You were right to start the sandbox on the talk page. (Illogical as that sounds to me!) I was wrong to move it and now it's been unceremoniously shunted elsewhere. Ideally I'd like to have it moved back to where you correctly created it, and have done so myself, if that sticks. If some arcane technical rule requires this to be undone (or I've somehow made it worse), you're more than welcome to do whatever you see fit tomorrow and have my blessing to do anything that would remove my edit history. I'm hoping the article page can be deleted while retaining the talk page. The relevant discussion is here and as yet he has not responded to my most recent post (bedtime for me). My apologies for any trouble, and I'm also sorry if I made you doubt that you'd done the correct thing. So going forward, it sounds like the best way to work this would be to create a section on the Talk:Barack Obama page each time a distinct project is begun at the sandbox, where editors will hammer out the addition or revamping, while discussion will unfold at Talk:Barack Obama. Abrazame (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox II

[edit]

Hi, reading the remark from the other editor on the talk page, I was compelled to write my thoughts on the missile tests, but have to run now. Look forward to reading and discussing further, and getting something into the article at long last! Best, Abrazame (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, made my edits to the first half of the Sandbox article; note the edit summaries. The second half of the article is more challenging; I'll probably be able to get back to this Sunday night or early Monday. I agree with what I think you said on the other page that we should finish what we've already bitten off, and add it to the article, before we consider adding completely new topics.
Additionally, In the interests of getting this in by midweek at the latest, I would propose that if a single paragraph (I still have problems with North Korea) needs more discussion, but we're in agreement about everything else, we should put all the rest in the article and withhold the questionable section until we have time to decide against it or hammer it out. This would prevent any other editor with a single objection or addition, serious or otherwise, from being able to hold up the rest of the work we've done; it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Abrazame (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed to see you rushed the Presidency section into the article in its entirety, as opposed to the first two and two-thirds sections as I had suggested here. It seemed like we had good communication going here and I don't understand why there was no further discussion on your part after my edits and posts Monday. I had been going through the sections top to bottom and had clearly not done any editing on the second half of the (then) Sandbox addition. I had expected to be free to edit yesterday (Tuesday) and today, after which I figured we'd put it into the article pending your approval of my edits. But I was too busy to edit here yesterday and am only just arriving today.
While I indicated I had a quibble with the auto section and still intend to work on that, I'm okay with leaving that in the article and getting to it when I can. I haven't yet read the Foreign Policy and War sections, so I have no specific reason to object to their addition prior to reading it other than what I had thought was our understanding. Still, I had expressly indicated major fundamental issues with the North Korean characterization, as well as my intention to discuss this further, and so I have reverted that section to the sandbox pending complete removal or some major development that rises to the level of inclusion here, from the weight standpoint at the very least. Abrazame (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

[edit]
Presidency section text moved to the article 6 June 2009
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hide this text

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox

[edit]

Please review this and this and note that non-free images cannot be used except in articles and must be accompanied by a fair-use rationale. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 08:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit]

Thanks

[edit]

Hey, just wanted to thank you for the compliment at my talk page a couple of weeks ago. It's easy to get jaded, or fed up, given all the delinquents and vandals and crusaders, and I have my better and my worse reactions, but it's fulfilling to give people the assumption of good faith when you're not quite sure where they fall. I have been known to tend toward the sardonic as well as the platonic, so some oversensitive types can misinterpret or suspect that duality. I much prefer a good collaboration to a good argument. Being argumentative is easier, which I guess is why so many people seem to come online for that purpose. But it's certainly nicer to meet or reencounter a user you like and/or respect than one you don't, and I try to be and to find in others the former. Best, Abrazame (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What we might write if we were going to reference the birther conspiracies on the main Barack Obama page

[edit]

(in the cultural and political image section, no need for a heading paragraph)

An oddity of Obama's public image is a set of persistent rumours that he was not born in Hawaii but in Kenya, and therefore is ineligible to be president[1], or that his citizenship has somehow lapsed. Believers claim that conspirators faked Obama's birth certificate and birth announcements[2]. The rumor has persisted since mid-2008 and was an issue in early 2011 for contenders for the Republication Presidential nomination[3][4].

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

[edit]

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

[edit]

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Etheridge, Eric (July 22, 2009). "'Birther' Boom". New York Times.
  2. ^ Barr, Andy (December 7, 2008). "Whisper campaign persists despite election". The Politico. Retrieved December 10, 2008.
  3. ^ "Donald Trump, Whoopi Goldberg, Spar Over Obama on 'The View'". The Wall Street Journal. March 24, 2011. Retrieved March 25, 2011.
  4. ^ Marr, Kendra (March 14, 2011). "Michele Bachmann: No birth flap for me". Politico.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CouldOughta&oldid=1166334464"