Talk:African heritage of presidents of the United States

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

Comment[edit]

Thanks for creating this article. I know it was just created from the remnants of a deleted article, but this article needs to discuss the non-fringey heritage of Obama, I would think. Also, a discussion of the cultural issues and controversies over what it means to be African-American as the issue has been discussed regarding background of Obama and how these terminologies are used and applied. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RedFlag[edit]

"Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." Wikpedia policy. The sources only repeat this group of fringe historians' own statements, which suggest that their material should not be included, according to Wikipedia policy. There are no high-quality sources verifying their claimes. There is not enough material to evaluate their claims, which are not supported by mainstream historians. Obama's heritage is discussed in his own article.--Parkwells (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any exceptional claims. The story is about an area of study by that has a small following. As long as it is contexted correctly and made clear that it's not conventional history, I think it's reasonable to include. If the article asserted that these speculations are true, that would be a different matter. But as with UFOs and such, we simply need to make it clear that these views are advocated by a subset of people and are not widely held or proven. I do wonder why there isn't mention of the verifiably African American president? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is just going to be an article on the alleged heritage of the presidents, maybe it needs a new title? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask me - it seems to have been taken just from the claims of some for African-American heritage of earlier presidents.--Parkwells (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This page uses non-neutral language to descredit anyone who believes or takes an interest in the idea that past U.S. Presidents may have had African heritage. I would like to nominate this article for a Non-Neutral Point of View tag. 72.225.255.170 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest fixing the article instead. But I have no objection to an NPOV tag. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article tries to point out the difference between having a "belief" in the idea that presidents may have had African heritage, and the weaknesses in the historical "evidence" which most of this group of researchers have presented to support that belief, for instance, a collection of late 19th c. folktales which are quoted as fact about Jefferson's heritage. It is unfortunate that researchers did not care enough to try to collect more substantive material. When you look at what they actually say, it appears little better than rumor.--Parkwells (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The group of people making the claims refer only to each other's work. It is difficult to find any other references or assessment of their claims, except newspaper accounts recounting their claims. These were sourced by other editors.--Parkwells (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2017[edit]

This article without the NPOV tag is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Whoever is making these brash edits have numerous grammatical errors, are very and obviously biased, do not have sources for their claims and many of the claims do not follow a logical process. If this is considered an article that doesn't need a NPOV then it makes a serious pejorative statement about Wikipedia overall. For the sake of Wikipedia I second the motion for an NPOV tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.142.101 (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Talk topic's previous posts date from 2009 and the new post is eight years later. The article has had a lot of work since then, so I moved the 2017 post into this new subsection.
NPOV is about neutrality relative to the sources, not relative to our views on a subject. The article reports the content of the sources. Since many of the claims in the sources are either wrong or unverified and they are reported as such and are given due weight along with the denials of African-American heritage where appropriate, neutrality is preserved.
Sources are relied upon and cited.
Whether the sources themselves are logical need not be a concern of Wikipedia editors. That is left to readers to decide. We say what the sources say; we avoid overclaiming; we cite the sources; readers can study the sources and thoughtfully draw their own conclusions. An editor is free not to add content but once content is added we don't delete it because we disagree with its conclusions, as long as it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for articles.
Grammatical errors in editorial text may be corrected. However, grammatical errors quoted from sources usually are left as they are, because, while we may paraphrase and are encouraged to, when we quote we need to be accurate in our quotations, and for some things quotations are preferred over paraphrases. It may be a good idea to mark an in-quotation error with "[sic]", to indicate that an error is so in the original.
Brashness is not a ground for an NPOV objection. We are encouraged to be bold in editing.
An editor being biased is irrelevant. What matters is the content.
If specific edits seem advisable within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, go ahead. We can revert or polish when needed.
Nick Levinson (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's African-American heritage[edit]

As it stands, the article simply mentions that Barack Obama has a Kenyan father. Is this sufficient to determine that he has African-American ancestry? After all, this statement in itself mentions nothing about his father's race, since there are white people in Kenya. If "African-American" is taken to refer to anyone who has an ancestor from Africa, then surely the fact that he has a Kenyan father is sufficient to establish this fact. However, if the term is taken to refer to someone of black African ancestry, then we need to add that Obama's father in fact is a black and not a white Kenyan. I leave this open for discussion; depending on which solution one prefers one either ends up not giving enough information or giving redundant information, which might be construed as insensitive (for instance, if the Kenyan origins of Obama's father are enough to make Obama African-American, then what's the point of mentioning that his father is specifically black?). David ekstrand (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make an excellent point here. If we define one as African-American based on country of origin and not race, then Obama would not be the first African-American president. According to the late William Addams Reitwiesner, the respected genealogist, Franklin D. Roosevelt would be the first US president with a documented African-born ancestor. His Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandfather Henry Smith was born in Tangier in present-day Morocco on 19 Jan. 1678/9. Igbo (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[1][reply]

For Obama to have African-American heritage, at least one of his parents would have to be of African-American heritage. His father was African, but not American. The correct definition would be American with partly African heritage, i.e. he has nothing in common with african-americans, which descend from slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.172.90 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's new to me. I never saw a distinction in semantics because of case between "African-American" and "african-american" (and it would be lost in speech). I understood the capitalized (and thus the uncapitalized) word as meaning an American with African (usually Black) descent, or, now that we know that everyone can trace their ancestry to Africa, as meaning an American with substantial and recent African (usually Black) descent. I think some people of White South African descent who are now Americans might identify as African American, although in American culture that would often disadvantage them in ways they are unlikely to stick with most of the time when they have white skin. I have not heard of Arab Americans or Persian Americans who are not Black but whose descent is through the African continent (Arab and Persian nations being on the African continent but not being of sub-Saharan Africa) self-identifying as African Americans. African Americans whose ancestry includes slaves in the Southern U.S. before 1865 and Black Americans whose ancestry did not include that slavery but whose ancestry includes Caribbean generations, even if none of their ancestors were slaves (often they were slaves, too), and people like President Obama whose ancestry is more recently through sub-Saharan Africa all tend to share experiences of racism in the U.S. when those inflicting even unintentional racism on them don't notice a difference. There's a news photo of Obama right after he won the 2008 election in which he's out taking a walk in casual clothing (I think in Chicago); if there had been no one accompanying him, I might have thought he was just another Black man walking on just another street (I'm white). If I'm wrong and you have a source for that semantic distinction based on capitalization or anything else, please edit or post acordingly. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Someone who's American, such as Obama, can be African American even if their parents were not American. The parents in that hypothetical case would not be African American but an American-born or -naturalized descendant would be. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.wargs.com/political/2008.html

Racist, or "racist"?[edit]

I noticed that Chancellor was referred to as a "racist" historican, not a racist historian (i.e., the term racist was enclosed by scare quotes). This seems wrong: is it ironic to say that Chancellor was a racist? No. Is there reason for skepticism, or for distancing the editors of Wikipedia from that claim? Not obviously. The claim isn't even attributed.

Now, it may well be the case that calling Chancellor a racist is unfair. I don't know, don't care. (Frankly, the guy sounds like a racist to me, but I don't care.) That's fine. But the right way to fix it isn't to drop a bomb like that and then to enclose it in quotation marks.74.232.112.200 (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson rumor[edit]

(The following is copied from the Andrew Jackson talk page (Mixed-race "rumors") to here, for discussion here, because it has become relevant to this article (18:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)):)

I am not a fan of Andrew Jackson. However, I find it a bit outrageous that a completely implausible contemporary slur against him is featured in the discussion of his early life, as if it might be fact. The slur, which I am going to delete, is presented as a "rumor" (obviously spread by his contemporary opponents) that his mother was a prostitute and his father was a black man. Jackson's physical appearance alone makes this highly unlikely, and the combination of the worst slur possible against his mother (that she was a prostitute who engaged in interracial sex, one of the biggest taboos of his time) with a claim that Jackson himself was mixed race (and therefore not eligible to vote let alone hold office according to the law of his time) make the "rumor" no more than an obvious and almost certainly false slur by his opponents. It doesn't matter that there are sources for this slur. It does not belong in a discussion about his early life because it is almost certainly false. It does not belong in the article at all unless sources (other than contemporary partisan sources) demonstrate that the slur had an important impact on Jackson's life or career. Therefore, I am deleting it from its present position. I leave it to others to decide whether the sources justify its insertion elsewhere in the article. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agreed...I'm glad you removed it. Rjensen (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the editor who added it. I'm not proposing it be re-added but I just noticed its deletion. The impact would have been on his election, as likely costing him some votes albeit not enough to defeat him. The due weight was from how controversial being African American was for being President, even as late as the 2008 election. The falsity would have been less obvious in Jackson's time to voters on the fence, as less was known about genetics and medical testing was, I think, nonexistent or nearly so, making familial knowledge (by itself and if seemingly true) more credible than it is today. Calling it rumor means it was not presented in Wikipedia as fact, although additional clarification could have helped. However, the general topic is presented elsewhere in Wikipedia, I added the deleted information there, and I cross-referenced that article in the See Also section in this one. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the problems is that the kids who use Wikipedia believe and copy what they read. The topic is of relevance not to Jackson but to the perpetrators of the rumor. Specifically there is no evidence (in any Jackson biography) that the rumor existed during Jackson's lifetime. -- Jackson wrote a letter to Call on August 16, 1828 that listed the nasty lies about him but mixes blood was not one of them. What we have is a 20th century hoax and does not belong with AJ's biography. Rjensen (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is important to African-American political history. There were Black folk afraid to hope too soon for a Black president even as late as 2008 because they thought he'd be assassinated. The rumor about Jackson appears to have been contemporary with his candidacy and not a 20th-century invention. It may have been a hoax during his campaign but whether the perpetrators believed it or not is irrelevant to its being in the campaign because some listeners likely would have believed it. Whether the rumor is in the Andrew Jackson article is arguably less important given a possible question of weight, but it certainly belongs in this article. Whether it also belongs in an article about a perpetrator is moot if we don't know who that is (I don't) and if the perp is not notable.
We don't write only for children. We write carefully to avoid likely misunderstandings but we don't hide information. For example, Wikipedia reports on a couple of blunders by Albert Einstein and we report on the flat Earth theory. We provide the information on each subject and we provide context for the benefit of readers. If readers believe it when we've told them it's an unsubstantiated rumor, that's legitimate to believe. And if readers copy articles, we have even less of a problem.
Conflicting information is reportable in Wikipedia. Where sources disagree, we can report both sides of a dispute.
Ultimately, we are all Black, although today's racial differences are usually quite visible and sociologically (if not genetically) large. Therefore, none of these rumors are false, but in the sense they were meant when propagated and given the popular (and probably scientific) ancestral understandings of the time they could be described as unproven. In a time when being White was socially more vital than it is today, if a person who was generally known as White stated that s/he might have Black blood that could amount to a probative or dispositive confession of fact. In this case, we are talking about a rumor from someone else, but that could easily have been believed. Jackson's appearance would have been a weak defense among voters who were afraid of a Black; many Blacks were and are very light-skinned. I'm not sure the rumor was an "obvious" slur among the undecided; if someone had said Jackson was born on another planet, that would be such an "obvious" error it would have been taken as a joke or ignored, but a charge of being Black would have had enough credibility to affect a vote total and may have contributed to the defeat of another Presidential candidate in early U.S. history. The rumor about Jackson was reported in a reliable source and we can report it in Wikipedia.
We don't need a 19th-century source. We report on many subjects of history of past centuries with 20th- and 21st-century sources. I checked whether The Affairs of Dame Rumor cited an earlier source in turn; it did not, and it would have been nice if it had, but we don't need it.
Jackson or even a particular scholar or journalist not having reported a rumor against Jackson is not dispositive, even if Jackson undertook to tell Call about all the rumors, and that's unlikely (he likely selected). If someone in 2008 had asked John McCain or Barack Obama to report rumors against themselves, we would not have considered that the complete set of important rumors. It's likely their campaign managers and opposition researchers would not have, either. We can evaluate the larger range of sources encouraged by Wikipedia's policies.
If the rumor should be excluded from the Jackson biography, that's okay, but it has due weight for this article.
I'm happy to consider rephrasings. Propose what you think is best, as long as we treat the subject fairly and consistently with sources.
Nick Levinson (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC) (Corrected two misspellings and clarified a sentence: 19:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

attribute denial on Andrew Jackson[edit]

A sentence is overbroad because it lacks an attribution, because we can't assume that Wikipedia or any of its editors knows of every scholarly biographer ever to discourse about a 19th-century President, even if one editor does. Please add something like "According to ...," to the new sentence with "[n]one of his scholarly biographers mention such a rumor", or edit the sentence in some other suitable way. For example, if someone came to a conclusion like that in the sentence, perhaps that person's work can be a source for the sentence. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is no RS to the effect that there were rumors during his lifetime of Jackson being black. That makes an editor's speculation to that effect off limits in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source was cited regarding the rumor in the article. Therefore, the content is not an editor's speculation. Please attribute the statement in the sentence in question, if you can. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
just what RS says the rumor circulated in Jackson's lifetime?? Rjensen (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What has to be supported is the statement, for which the source is The Affairs of Dame Rumor. It does not matter whether the rumor about his having been African American was in his lifetime (although it appears t have been) since the article is about African American heritage of Presidents and he was a President and we are reporting it as a rumor that has weght whether contemporary or retrospectve. It would deserve little or no weight if it contradicted the science of the time, but The Affairs of Dame Rumor was published in 1948, so science since 1948 is irrelevant to the rumor, and most of the DNA studies we rely on today are from after that year.
Either way, the sentence this topic is about is overbroad. Doubtless, many books discuss Jackson, especially since such a collection would have to include books about, say, Lincoln, Tennessee, or the Creek Indians that have significant content (perhaps a page) about Jackson. There may be only a countable few "scholarly biographers" who today are generally relied on but the "none" needs an attribution. Or you could rephrase into, e.g., "several scholars do not say ..." and then list several sources that fit that description. Wikipedia recommends not exceeding three, which doesn't necessarily preclude reporting sources on the other side.
And scholarly biographers need not be the only reliable sources.
Nick Levinson (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC) (Corrected syntax and an ellipsis: 21:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
As for Jacobson, David J. The Affairs of Dame Rumor (New York and Toronto: Rinehart and Co., 1948). 492pp., it is not held in high regard. A standard source says it is " A disorganized book on the public's tendency to believe rumors. There is considerable discussion of newspapers as carriers of rumor." [quoting Price, Literature of Journalism (1999) - Page 370] so it has little weight as a RS -- especially since there are over 800 scholarly books and articles focused primarily on Jackson (according to "America History & Life" 2013 lists). The review of the RS is done by specialists--these historians have read hundreds of studies as well as thousands of primary sources and they tell us what the RS say about AJ and none of them have any mention of black ancestry; I refer to Hendrik Booraem, Young Hickory: The Making of Andrew Jackson (2001) which is now the standard study on his parents and youth; Robert Remini, Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Empire, 1767-1821. Vol. 1 (1999), the standard scholarly biography; The Papers of Andrew Jackson. Vol. 1, 1770-1803 (1980) (and later volumes) the standard collection of primary sources; and H.W. Brands, Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times (2006), a recent full-scale scholarly biography. AJ was born in 1767 2 years after his parent immigrated from Ireland in 1765. There are zero RS that have been cited here that say Jackson had Negro ancestry. There are zero RS cited here that say there were rumors to that effect during his lifetime. Absent RS we are left with unfounded speculation that is not allowed by Wikipedia, especially in such an important well-studied case. Rjensen (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's comparing sources that establish modern knowledge of him to a source that studied past rumors, itself a valid subject, as long as we correctly characterize it. The sources cited in your post besides The Affairs of Dame Rumor are from 1980 and later. We're not talking about today's rumors coming from people who have better knowledge available. We're talking about rumors that circulated when better knowledge could not be established with nearly the same certainty by the general public of the time.
A source relying on newspapers is appropriate for a study of rumors. Disorganization affects finding content but not accuracy. So it qualifies as reliable for what it is supporting.
Wikipedia accepts a wider range of sources as reliable than historians might. The historians to whom you refer may have well-thought-out opinions but their criteria for reliability are likely different, and your discussion focuses on modernity, which may reflect a criterion applied by modern historians, for very good reason, but Wikipedia serves a different purpose, which is to widen the information to which we have access. Where a Wikipedia article is getting too long, criteria for sources may be tightened, but brevity is not at risk here. We do need to be accurate abut what we report, however.
I appreciate your supplying citations that might support the sentence this topic is about. Perhaps you can edit the sentence accordingly and specifically.
Nick Levinson (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC) (Corrected two misspellings: 22:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson and whether rumors were scurrilous[edit]

The apparent point of view should be removed from or justified in "Andrew Jackson listed the scurrilous rumors circulated against him in 1828, and nowhere mentioned any rumor that he had mixed blood." Given the subject of the article, scurrilousness is in the eye of the beholder. Even if Blacks universally hated him, his being Black might only signify his betrayal and not that his being Black (if he was) should be rejected. However, an alternative is to quote or attribute the word ("scurrilous"). Could someone who has the source please edit? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is the issue 1) his ancestry (which is not a matter of dispute among scholars--they all reject and black blood notions) or 2) hostile political attacks in the 1820s [there were indeed many attacks] or 3) the false belief by some blacks today that he had black blood??? Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to be so hostile to readers of Wikipedia. Assuming Jackson thought the rumors qute scurrilous, for us to describe them as such would be a POV violation. If Jackson thought so, say that. If the source said so, quote and attribute. If another source said so, cite, attribute, and quote. Or choose a neutral word. We're not here to punish readers for their beliefs or most articles would need rewriting, such as articles on various religions of the world. The beliefs alone are notable. We focus on reporting.
I'll probably be back online mid-week.
Nick Levinson (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the question for this page is not false rumors in 1828 but a) historical fact and b) false beliefs circulating in the 21st century. As for a) The RS are all agreed on his ancestry, as for b) there are indicators that some blacks today may believe that AJ had black ancestry. Rjensen (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The central reason for reporting the unverified claims is notability, in that some African Americans, some anti-Black racists, and likely some others believe them and sources report those beliefs. Refutations amount to criticisms and both the beliefs and the criticisms are reportable, and both need to be accurately reported, the beliefs reported for what the beliefs generally are and the refutations by the consensus of scholarly conclusions.
Given the history of race relations, the general belief is not wholly without ground. The best contrary evidence today, to my knowledge, would be by DNA testing. But several refutations of Blackness seem to rely on place as a proxy for race. Yet, if one partner to a pregnancy was, say, a light-skinned Black, a descendant had a good chance of concealing that fact and motivation to do so was commonly strong. Coming from a White family of any status level did (and does) not necessarily preclude sexual intercourse with a Black if one or two people so desire. Was Jackson (perhaps via recent relatives) tested via DNA? This article treats each President only briefly, so DNA negations might be elsewhere, but adding that information here might be helpful.
Nick Levinson (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as to the POV. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

first edits of February 20, 2013[edit]

I reformatted the Claims of African Heritage section (including copying a statement from the lead); copied (with editing) parentage sources for President Obama from the Barack Obama, Sr. (his father) and Ann Dunham (his mother) articles; added a Citation Needed template; deleted POV wordings, an unsourced statement within a ref element (restorable if sourced), and an overly vague statement about Vaughn; made a new statement more specific, attributing to specific scholars; restored (with editing) an earlier sourced statement about President Jackson; copied (with editing) a statement and a referent about Jackson's father's birth from the Andrew Jackson article; added on President Obama's birth certificate controversy, with sourcing from the cited article, because if he had been born in Africa that would have been important for his African-American heritage; corrected syntax in the lead and a linguistic error; added categories; edited the Reflist template; and respaced. There's more editing coming soon, probably the next time or two I'm online. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson and the rumor allegedly about the brother[edit]

I was going to restore this statement (as edited) until I noticed an apparent internal contradiction, and would appreciate an editor's help in correcting it: "The rumor about his [Jackson's] brother was about an entirely different person, and appeared after Jackson's death.<ref>''Narrative and Writings of Andrew Jackson, of Kentucky; Containing an Account of His Birth, and Twenty-Six Years of His Life While a Slave; His Escape; Five Years of Freedom, Together with Anecdotes Relating to Slavery; Journal of One Year's Travels; Sketches, etc. Narrated by Himself; Written by a Friend'', Syracuse: Daily and Weekly Star Office.</ref>" The problem is that the source is a friend's writing of Andrew Jackson's narrative and writings but the rumor is said to have appeared posthumously. Unless both the President and the brother in question were named Andrew (if so, that needs clarification) or unless the author did not merely write the President's narrative and writings but added posthumously (if so, that needs clarification), it appears that the President reported a rumor that began only after the President died, which, in secular terms, is not possible. And I see that Andrew Jackson's narrative and writings include 26 years of slavery and 5 years in freedom, which doesn't leave much time for being President plus campaigning beforehand. Since the friend's name is not given as author, nor even substituted for with anon, we don't even have the means for attribution in the main text. If an editor determined that the source does not support the statement and no other source is available, then we should not include that particular refutation (although another, if sourced, might do). Help will be appreciated. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obama, birth, and eligibility for office[edit]

The Constitution I think requires that a President be a U.S. citizen by "natural" birth, so that their mother's place of birth is irrelevant (some nations assign citizenship by parental birth but the U.S. and some other nations assign by the person's own birth). I'm not sure, but I think that's what Article 2, Section 1, requires (there was an exception for anyone living when the Constitution was adopted but that has not applied in over a century). So, if the now-President had been born in Africa, he would have been ineligible for the Presidency, and I think that was the principal importance of the birther claim: it was an effort to disqualify him from the office before he got there. But I don't have a source at the moment, so I don't plan to restore the deleted language on point until I have a source, unless someone else does. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think the book cited for the purpose is also available online from a government website, besides being in hard copy, but we don't need to cite a URL that we didn't use. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation. To be a natural-born citizen means to be a citizen at birth, irrespective of where you were physically born. Therefore, even if Obama were born in Kenya, he would still be a US citizen at birth by virtue of his mother's citizenship. Conversely, despite being born in Hawaii, Obama was also a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (because Kenya did not receive it's independence from the UK until 1963) because of his father. In other words, Obama was a dual American and UK citizen at birth (dual American and Kenyan beginning in 1963). According to FactCheck.org, Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship when her turned 23.[1] I also find your interpretation problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, when Gov. George Romney ran for President in 1968 he was not disqualified despite being born in Mexico to US-citizens. Ted Cruz, who has been viewed as a potential candidate for President in 2016 was born in Canada to American citizens. (Or does the disqualification only apply to Democratic candidates?) Another problem with you assertion is that children born on foreign military bases while their parents are serving abroad would also be disqualified. I know of at least one such individual. She was born in Japan while her father was stationed there. As proof of her American citizenship, she received a special birth certificate issued by the State Department which lists San Francisco as her place of birth.Igbo (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/

editing of June 8, 2013[edit]

I'm about to edit the article by adding and editing on Harding rumors from the Warren G. Harding article (African-American Lineage Contention section); and on the Rogers source, including the source citation, largely per the Talk page for the Black President article (Arguably 5 or More U.S. Black Presidents Before Obama section). Nick Levinson (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

whether RfD[edit]

An editor wrote in a recent Edit Summary, "[t]his 'article' should be RfD". The content is well-enough sourced for notability, thus it can be an article on its own. While all U.S. Presidents except Obama are generally considered white, the perspective of blackness in other Presidents simply means the subject is controversial. Wikipedia reports controversies. That most of the claims are disputed or are wrong is not a reason to delete the article's content. I know of no similar article into which this can be merged and still keep content on Presidents as Black together in one place. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC) (Corrected to link to editor and reduce other link, as I thought I already did: 19:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

whether weasel words[edit]

In the discussion (now closed) about deleting this article, it was said that there are weasel words, and the article has been tagged to that effect. I'm not clear that there are any. The discussion on this point seems to be more about disagreements on content, viz., whether evidence supported one statement of fact or another or one form of expression or another. That is not an issue of weasel wording but of supplying sourced content that disagrees with what is reported in the article. All editors are invited to add sourced content disputing any sourced content already in the article, since Wikipedia reports multiple contradictory views when they're all due weight. In addition, all editors are invited to edit weasel wording if found, although weasel wording that is reasonably paraphrased or quoted from a source is not itself objectionable for Wikipedia. For example, if the article said "some" presidents had been the subject of the claims raised in the article when the article supports an exact quantity of presidents, that would be weasel wording that should be edited to the proper quantity. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the tag, but editors remain free to edit on all matters, including if a weasel word is found outside of a quotation or close paraphrase and if more specific wording is supportable. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on African-American heritage of United States presidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton's heritage[edit]

The question of Alexander Hamilton's possible African heritage should be addressed here as well. Lfpalmer (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC) [1][reply]

He wasn't a President but I added the See Also section and a link to Wikipedia's article about him, which covers that point. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2004-01/1073702238

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United States Presidents and control of Congress which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas not Abe's biological father[edit]

There are discussions that Thomas was castrated before puberty (at 10) and unable to father children.

Troy Cowan, Quora, 11/28/15 cites Emanuel Hertz, The Hidden Lincoln from the letters and papers of William H. Herndon, Blue Ribbon, Inc. 1938, pg 176

This then leaves an open question of who Abraham's biological father was. Troy mentions Samuel Davis..

This online source document NIU Lincoln / Net, items 673, 674 describe Enloe's denial and substantiate Thomas's inability..

LarryLACa (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deleted categories said to be inapt here[edit]

A lot of categories were deleted as "inapt". Why are they inapt? There's significant discussion of various category subjects in this article. Unless inaptitude is adequately supported, I plan to re-add them. They generally help Wikipedia readers find this article. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on African-American heritage of presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:African-American gospel which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article exist?[edit]

Can anyone explain why this article exists? Based on its title, it should be empty, because there is no known instance of any president of the U.S. having African-American heritage (President Obama's father was African, not African-American). If the article were renamed "African heritage of presidents of the United States", I'm still not convinced it would be notable enough for its own page. If anything, it could consist of two paragraphs: One on Obama's African heritage and one on the unsubstantiated rumors about other presidents. Alternatively, any relevant information on Obama's heritage could be spun off into Obama's Wikipedia page and the rest of the article could be deleted. If the article were renamed "Unsubstantiated rumors about African heritage of presidents of the United States", that article name would encompass most of the article's current content. However, I question whether that topic is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page.

In any case, the current title of the article doesn't match its content. SunCrow (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One correction to my post above: There is data indicating that Obama has African-American ancestry on his mother's side. SunCrow (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure there isn't enough discussion about the unsubstantiated stories about other presidents to meet our notability requirement? That puzzles me because I see a lot of sources for each president. Having all of it in one article doesn't seem problematic and seems useful to any reader interested in the issue. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

The reason why I never got excited about Barack Obama being the first black president because he was up Abraham Lincoln's father was a black man a black slave and there was another president whose mother was Indian Barack Obama was just the first black man of color. If anything Michelle Obama and her two girls were the first fully black African-Americans to be of power in the White House. The first African American that was not slave or worker in the White House was a woman and her two daughters Michelle Obama. Barack Obama is just the first black man of color the darkest President we ever had but Abraham Lincoln was just like Barack Obama except Abraham Lincoln looked White both presidents had a great mothers and black fathers from Africa 2601:4A:8100:A430:5C8:6450:1E11:7732 (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_heritage_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&oldid=1221239744"