Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

Wales, Germany, Ireland, etc.

I whacked that segment out. It's not a matter for a concise biography, and is covered adequately in other articles. PhGustaf (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, though I did restore the part about his mother being of mostly English descent. We need a concise cite for that. If we're going to say that his father is from a certain ethnicity / tribe / country in Africa than it seems only reasonable to go into a comparable level of specificity for his mother. Also, the later discussion of him being multiracial only makes sense if we establish somewhere that his father was a black African and his mother a white American of European descent. Something like that. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no harm in mentioning the Irish and German heritage, as it's been established. My only objection to the Welsh heritage was the lack of certainty. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about "heritage", we're talking about ancestry. If Obama's Irish or German or Welsh background were shown to influence his behavior in some way, that would be a matter for the bio. A dissection of the ancestry of any American whose family has been around for a couple hundred years would find ancestors of many nationalities, but so what? PhGustaf (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree that there was too much genealogy in there, but I think the Irish stuff is not considered spurious. Since that heritage has played some role in his public appearances, to leave it out of here seems off to me - I would just say English and Irish with cites. Tvoz/talk 13:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The German was cited as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden Death audio file

I added an audio file for the Bin Laden death. This was reverted 41 minutes later. The file is 6.05 MB versus 31.68MB for the video. It is provided for the many readers on slow connections or who for whatever other reasons are unable to access the video. It is common to provide audio only alternative files and I think it is imperative for a file of this significance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Audio-only version restored. SMP0328. (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Characterization as pro-gay

Obama is widely celebrated as the first gay president of the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs)

That's very odd wording. They mean gay as in a homosexual male, no? He is not homosexual though afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking I was going to take one look at this and delete it as vandalism, particularly as the OP neglected to sign his post. But at a glance and without reading those articles I get what they say. I don't really know if these sources are notable enough to make the biographical statement, I don't recognize any of these names the way I recognize this one, from the Bill Clinton article:

"Clinton drew strong support from the African American community and made improving race relations a major theme of his presidency. In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison in The New Yorker called Clinton "the first Black president", saying, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas", and comparing Clinton's sex life, scrutinized despite his career accomplishments, to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.

This was particularly notable because Toni Morrison had a great deal of gravitas and prominence and insightful, poetic depth as a spokesperson to the black experience (no faction has a single representative, but she was undeniably chief among a handful of living equals as such). And it was a very thought-provoking statement in full, not merely a moniker. I don't think the moniker itself out of context is at all helpful—to the contrary it would be perceived as inflammatory. We're not saying something that is literally so, or even a directly figurative comment, the way one might call, I don't know, Michael Jackson the "King of Pop". He was not a king in any respect, but he certainly established a decades-long primacy in the field of pop music. But Clinton is not black and Obama is not gay, so you need a really significant notability to give traction to the biographical meme. It may sound lame to say I haven't read the articles yet I'm gonna weigh in with my reaction anyway, but part of my point is that people who were not black knew who Toni Morrison was, or ought to have. I don't think anybody who is not gay knows who McCullogh, McCarthy, Weinstein and Perez are — which is not to say they are gay, but which is to say they are not universally accepted as an arbiter or diarist or poet of the gay experience the way Morrison was of the black experience.

Now, I'm not exactly the arbiter of the gay experience either, so correct me if I'm wrong (ought I to know who these four are?), but I think I'd recognize any number of prominent gay names. And I recall someone arriving at this page furious that Obama wasn't doing enough for gay rights. In fact, I recall coming across an opinion piece a few years ago by a gay man lambasting Barney Frank as being anti-gay. So, you know, there's always going to be somebody who disagrees with a characterization — and there may be good reason for that minority within a minority opinion — and no group is monolithic, but I'd like to see someone bring to our notice an unquestionably prominent and deeply respected individual giving a thoughtful, fulsome statement before supporting it as a biographical detail. Feel free to make the case if there is one amongst these four, but I think without that, this is the sort of thing we would include in, you know, a fifty-page article (or a specific article about Obama's record on gay issues) but that just doesn't rise to the notability standard we require at Wikipedia in general and a wide-ranging presidential bio in particular, the way the Morrison comment about Clinton does. Abrazame (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Most liberal senator

Actually according to: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/08fringes.pdf. Obama was not one of the most liberal, he was the most liberal Senator for 2007. Could that change please be made. Rodchen (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that portion of that section should be re-worded, but not in the manner you are requesting. The National Journal rankings are subjective and have been criticized by various reliable sources. In fact, the then editor of the magazine stated in 2004 that it's rankings should not be used because they are "sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong". Coincidently, the magazine also rated Senator John Kerry as "the most liberal Senator" during the 2004 Presidential election. PolitiFact rates this as "barely true", just because the magazine did in fact rate Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, but then goes on to explain the rating is essentially meaningless because of the subjective manner used to make that determination. So yes, that portion should be changed, but I would suggest it either be removed or have more objective wording based on these sources I have presented and the fact that even the editor of the magazine is critical of using the ratings in a political manner. Dave Dial (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If the survey is unreliable we can't self source it for background info about who Obama is as we now do. We can't begin to fit in the stuff that's actually true, much less the dubious stuff. Saying that he was described as X, but he probably isn't, has little relevance to the article without context. I do know that some of his opponents latched onto that and used it as a campaign point against him, but sourcing their statements is also unreliable. The only way I could see keeping it is if we have third party neutral reliable sources that say the ranking of Obama as the most liberal senator was subjective, but the ranking -- as opposed to actually being liberal -- became significant to him. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Any 'ranking' on being liberal or conservative is of course subjective. That is why one quotes those who do the ranking. But since the article quote and cites nationaljournal, then the article should at least site it correctly, and state that they ranked him as the most liberal senator in 2007. Please see the reference. One may disagree with the ranking, but the statement 'According to National Journal Obama was ranking the most liberal Senator in 2007' is a statement of fact. And to say 'According to National Journal Obama was one of the most liberal senators' is actually hidding part of the truth. Rodchen (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The placement of this disputed factoid as one of five sentences summing up his senate career gives it undue weight and I'm going to remove it on that basis. The place for a full discussion of the factoid - including Obama's comments disputing it which are absent from this section - is probably the Senate Career article and not this one unless the Senate section is greatly expanded. Gamaliel (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you think the same way about the sentence 'He enjoyed high popularity as senator with a 72% approval in Illinois' especially since the article is actually dealing with MN senators and not Obama. Rodchen (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the issue that the 72% approval is subjective, disputed, or discredited? If so then yes, the mere fact that there exists a questionable poll would be of little WP:WEIGHT. On the other hand, if the point is that the high approval rating reported is poorly sourced or unimportant that's a separate question, perhaps that should be removed too. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Rodchen (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this "most liberal senator" label is that it is based on voting record, which is necessarily curtailed during a campaign. Most of Obama's votes during the campaign were made because they were needed to ensure a Democratic majority, and are thus skewed toward leaning liberal. In any case, this issue is already covered in the appropriate place. A biography of Obama's entire life should not focus on his 2007 voting record, per WP:WEIGHT -- Scjessey (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously any objective observer would not consider Obama the most "liberal" Certainly people like Russ Feingold are considerably to the left of him. The word liberal does not really have a set meaning anyway. For Example, Is voting for a giant wall on the southern border conservative or liberal? However, it could still go in if worded properly. For instance: "The National Journal claimed that..." 68.188.25.170 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

The Iraq section needs lots of work At minimum there needs to be mention that Obama intends to keep American military bases and troops in Iraq until beyond his term. I'm not as concerned with how the rhetoric is phrased or whether wikipedia is calling the war over (The previous American president also declared that "combat operatins were over in Iraq several years ago) just as long as its clear that our bases and troops are still there and not planning on leaving during Obama's term 68.188.25.170 (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Care to present a source? Given that your next two sections on this talk page make claims often directly refuted by your sources, I think we'll need to see a reliable source for your claims before discussing them further. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain

There needs to be something about Obama's polices regarding the rebellion and subsequent clampdown in Bahrain. Obama has recently hosted the corwn prince of Bahrain and reaffirmed America's commitment to the Bahrainian regime and characterized the protesters as terrorists. There also needs to be mention of the large number of American military bases in the country. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/white-house-affirms-relationship-bahrain-detentions-and-prosecutions-continue 68.188.25.170 (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your article says no such thing, except that the Crown Prince was here. It makes no mention of the US declaring the protesters to be terrorists, and in fact specifically has statements of Obama condemning the mass arrests. It does not indicate support for the government crackdown, and in fact shows Obama's praise of things like lifting the martial law decree. You're going to have to do a lot better than this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it clearly says that Obama is supporting the the regime's crackdown on the rebels and protesters. This is not opinion up for debate, this is his official position 68.188.25.170 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source saying it. The one you presented says, quite literally, the exact opposite. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

More on Bahrain: Obama gave them $200 million over the last 12 months to help protect the government from rebeliion http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/105771 ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.25.170 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

However you'd characterize it, a detailed mention would be undue weight here, as this is a biographical article. There are better articles for describing US relations with individual states in the middle east. It might deserve a couple words in a sentence about the US reaction to Arab Spring events, if such a sentence is added to this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are deliberately misrepresenting the claims of the article, but I'll assume good faith and that you simply misunderstood it. It does not say that Obama gave them anything. It doesn't even say that a branch of the U.S. government gave them anything. These were private weapons sales from U.S. companies to Bahrain. The Government reviews sales between U.S. weapon manufactures and foreign governments, and the article is specifically addressing how the government is looking into the effectiveness those procedures, but the government itself didn't give Bahrain anything. Also note that the article says nothing about Obama. It would be odd to say "Obama approved..." because on a basic level he didn't. Whether or not he's responsible for everything that is done by the State Department falls into more of a campaign issue regarding appointment decisions and so forth. Obama himself would not handle something as mundane as reviewing foreign wepaons sales; that task would be handled by people within the State Department. Again whether any oversight by Department officials reflects on Obama is a separate issue, it would still be odd and incorrect to suggest that Obama personally approved of the weapon sales and it is completely false to say the government gave Bahrain anything.Jdlund (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yemen

There needs to be something about Obama's policies in Yemen. Obama supports the regime in Yemen and is aiding in the government's crackdown of protesters/rebels with supplies and airstrikes http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?_r=1 Mention of strikes aimed at killing Anwar Al-Awlaki might also be appropriate 68.188.25.170 (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not an accurate description of the complicated situation (well, your description isn't). Your article is about intensifying strikes against al-Qaeda. The protesters are an entirely different and separate thing, and not mentioned in your article at all. On that, the United States has been critical of and putting pressure on the Yemeni government, most recently proposing that a new transitional government form while Saleh is out of the country. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about cooperation with the regime of Yemen to keep them in power against rebellion. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. Flat out, it is not about any such thing. It is about US actions against al-Qaeda. It says so itself again and again. It even talks about how this fact, and our airstrikes, have been made difficult by co-mingling of al Qaeda forces with the rebellion. It further points out that the US is working on making its case to possible transitional governments that the strikes need to continue. Post Saleh transitional governments. I'm left to ask if you really read your article, or the one I linked to you. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is about joint military operations between the US and Yemen against Rebels. You call them terrorists but that is POV. They are people trying to overthrow the government of Yemen. The traditional term for that is a rebel. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What is not POV is that the militant groups the Obama administration has been opposing, according to the article (not necessarily Obama personally, which affects weight and elevance), are linked to Al Qaida and that America considers them terrorists. This is a pretty big issue with respect to relations between the United States and Yemen, but as a snapshot of US involvement in a number of simultaneous related events in a number of countries, one issue in one part of the globe, it needs to be kept in proportion. Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Either way, remember -- this article is about Barack Obama the person, not his policies. Only extremely broad-strokes overviews of his major, most defining policies, actions, and positions belong on this article. His policy towards Yemen -- regardless of what it is -- doesn't really meet that standard; it belongs on a more specific subpage or one devoted to his presidency rather than the man himself. --Aquillion (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel

The section on Israel needs a lot of work. Most importantly there needs to be something about his opposostion to United Nations recognition of Palestine as an independent state. Even going so far as to say he would actively stop such a recognition with a veto. He has also said that he would seek to maintain Israel's military advantage over the Palestinians http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/144753.htm. The way the article reads now gives the reader a completely false impression of Obama's position. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your article makes no such claims, doesn't even discuss most of your claims' topics, and is a year old (Obama's positions on Palestine have changed a lot in that time). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What? Are you denying Obama says he will veto UN regognition of palestine? I take it then you don't know anything about the conflict and Obama's official position? Please don't try to edit the israel section then. As far as the article, yes it clearly says the militarty advantage stuff. Its in the headline of the official state department press release. Read it again. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am denying that your source says that. Your source doesn't even include the word "veto" in it. Until you present a reliable source backing your claims, you should not be editing the section either. That's Wikipedia policy. Being a headline from the State Department doesn't change the fact that it is a year old, and Obama's policies have changed in that time, and doesn't change the fact that it does not say what you claim. Present a source that does. That goes the same for all of your topics. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think anyone could not have known about his official positon opposing UN recognition of Palestine. Yes there are many sources http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=224394 And yes the military advantage stuff is clearly in the headline of the official state department release68.188.25.170 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would that information possibly need to be in this article, instead of in the Presidency of Barack Obama article? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from TheLibrarian64, 28 June 2011

Change a native from Honolulu,Hawaii TO Born in Honolulu, Hawaii

TheLibrarian64 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - No reason to make this change, as the existing wording is fine. "A native of" means "born in". Tvoz/talk 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't go ahead and do it over the objection, but I think this deserves consideration. Were he born in any of the 48 contiguous states, there would be no issue, but Hawaii – and I believe Alaska also – ascribes a special meaning to the word "native" (usually capitalized, granted), and the suggestion doesn't seem unreasonable. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed it. "Hawaii Native" does have a specific meaning, and Obama isn't one. (Not at all a swipe at Obama or anyone else; it's perhaps worth noting that Hawaii is among the most racially openhearted places on the planet.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Although the existing wording is fine, I also say that "Native" is also acceptable. Phearson (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big deal either way. I just chose to go with the more neutral and inarguable term. PhGustaf (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)}

← Hmm, I don't see it that way, PhGustaf - the phrase "Native Hawaiian" does have special meaning as a reference to the indigenous people of Hawaii, similar to "Native American", also a referent to the indigenous peoples. But saying "A native of Honolulu, Hawaii," to me means only that he was born in Honolulu, not that he is a "Native Hawaiian" in that indigenous-people sense. So to my ears, it is correct as it stands, "a native of Honolulu, Hawaii". (The "of" changes the meaning.) "I am a native of New York" doesn't make me an Algonquian. I don't think it's a big deal at all, but I do think as a featured article we want to keep the writing as good as possible, and if we can avoid repeating the word "born", it seems to me to be better writing. I won't go to the wall on this one though. Tvoz/talk 01:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Tvoz. "Native of x" doesn't imply ethnicity to me any more than (e.g.) "South African–born American" would imply "African American". "Brilliant prose" would seem to recommend against repeating the word "born". But it's not a huge issue either way. —Designate (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with everyone! I'm feeling very inclusive today. I agree that "a native of" works, and has the exact same logical implications as "born in". However, invoking the word "native" creates a modicum of cognitive dissonance because it reminds people of the usage of capital-n Native, and may confuse a few... hence the request. Thus, I think it's better and clearer if we say "born in". Actually the fact that he was born in Hawaii is more relevant than that he's a native of Hawaii. The first is a biographical fact, the second an affinity designation. It's like saying that it's raining instead of saying that we're in the rain zone. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Lies

I was thinking about a list of lies article to be made to where it shows the list of confirmed and sourced lies Obama has stated. It could be helpful to many. • GunMetal Angel 02:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not going to happen, no. We write articles based on what reliable sources have to say, we don't blog about our personal point of view. Tarc (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless some reliable source says that he lied about something, then it could be eligible for inclusion. Phearson (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what "we don't blog about our personal point of view" means, I obviously and clearly said up there that it would have to sourced. Also, somebody lying is not a "personal point of view". • GunMetal Angel 01:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It is your opinion if they're lying, yes. Politicians routinely fail to follow up on what they campaigned on in the primaries, it is the nature of politics. That doesn't mean that said politician was being intentionally deceptive at the time of the campaign. The only ones that scream "OMG YOU LIKE" are the partisan hacks on the fringes, e.g. WorldNetDaily or MoveOn. Any such list added to this article would be swiftly reverted, and any standalone article would be taken to AfD in a heartbeat. This isn't even worth discussing. Tarc (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well actually, no. US politicians routinely fail to follow up on what they campaigned on, but even more routinely campaign on unspecified change, hope, values and suchlike bullshit (in the Frankfurtian sense of this technical term): see this article. If we wanted to create such lists, it would be easy to put aside descriptions of or promises for the future and limit ourselves to utterances about the past and present. As long as a politician is not bullshitting, such propositions have truth values. Well, are they true or are they false? In principle, reliable sources can ascertain this. (In practice, various factors will complicate this, but it can still be done.) So we could, in principle, end up with a list of falsities. The next problem would be of determining which of these were actual lies. That too might eventually be possible, but it's tough. (There might also be a fear of libel suits.) So I'd suggest limiting it at falsities (if it were done at all). Indeed I don't think I'm screaming OMG anything when I say that a list of falsities uttered by each prez (and presidential candidate?) is an idea that appears to have more encyclopedic value than do lists of trivia for this or that fictional "world". It would have to be discussed calmly by people who neither scream OMG nor rush to label those who disagree with them "partisan hacks on the fringes". Certainly this talk page, being about an article on a specific prez, isn't the place for such a discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely absurd. I haven't commented in this thread because it's a joke, and has absolutely no chance of happening. You're an admin, and actually believe this bullshit has merit? What a joke. Dave Dial (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, two meanings of "bullshit", and it would seem two jokes as well. But enjoy your merriment. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, and I believe it should be left alone. Phearson (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the topic isn't going anywhere. But I would say to the original poster, and really anyone who wants certain criticisms of Obama in the article, please be specific. When you come here and say "can I put in the article that Obama lies" or "why isn't there a criticism section" you just come across as wanting to turn this into some partisan blog. Just say, with specific detail, what exactly you want put into the article, the sources you have for it and make a case for why it is important enough to go here in the man's biography as opposed to say a sub-article about his presidency or some aspect of it. I don't say this out of any political bias, I would say this no matter who the president is. Whenever there is a polarizing figure (which will undoubtedly apply to any U.S. president) you might have to work a little harder to get stuff added. It would be more productive to not ask for vague, undefined additions that you totally swear you have sources for and just articulate what you want with detail and sources at the ready. That's really not too much to ask.Jdlund (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Politicians routinely fail to follow up on what they campaigned on in the primaries",since this is true shouldn't after a while all presidential nominees know that it's true, meaning when they make a promise it is a lie since they are certain that they won't be able to fulfill them? How many times can people make the same "mistake" and not have it count? --24.94.251.19 (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo gone

The photo File:Obama and daughter Sasha 2006.jpg was recently and swiftly given a Wikipedia:CSD#F4 and is now simply a bare red link in the article. Does anybody remember its provenance — was it a fair use photo that simply didn't have the proper blurb filed for this admin, or do we have to find another pic? Abrazame (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Obama and daughter Sasha 2006.jpg

Obama and his younger daughter, Sasha, in 2006

I have moved the file to this talk page. There's no point in having an empty image file in the article. If the image is restored, then the file can be as well. I'm also curious as to why the image was deleted. At least there should have been an explanation given at this talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I read that it was deleted by Fastily because of "F4: Lack of licensing information". When it was uploaded, the uploader had pinned a "PD-USGov" template to it. The next day, Feydey added "di-no source" template. The person who uploaded it does not seem yet to have responded to this question about it, even though he or she has found time to make plenty of other edits since then. -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Would this, either as is or cropped a bit, be an acceptable replacement? I'm a bit confused on licensing, because the caption lists usage restrictions but they don't seem much different from the boilerplate explanation of any government photo here. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The Flickr page says: This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. (Neither applies.) The photograph may not be manipulated in any way (one of which ways would be cropping). It seems to me very different from the boilerplate explanation that you cite in that (for one thing) the latter doesn't mention a distinction between news organizations and others. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Teleprompter

It is interesting that any mention's of Obama's teleprompter user are promptly deleted. Whether or not his use is significantly different does not matter when discussion of his teleprompter is widespread among the general public, as shown by comparing the Google queries for Obama+Teleprompter (Obama teleprompter) and Bush+Teleprompter (Bush teleprompter.) Omitting this popular topic of public reference to the president would do a disservice to Wikipedia's goal of being an informative encyclopedia for everyone just as much as omitting the false accusations of Fatty Arbuckle committing murder would from his article.

Cliff Racer (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. If the public attention to Obama's teleprompter use is "irrelevant," we should go ahead and delete the whole article about his dog. - Calmypal (T) 14:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I pose the question, what does the teleprompter have to do with Barack Obama? Certainly there are other other people in the world that use one. Why single out the fact that the president uses it? Seems to me that any inclusion of it would be an endorsement for the teleprompter industry. Phearson (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Our personal opinion of the significance of any particular fact is irrelevant. Peter Baker's report on Obama's teleprompter use should be mentioned because it is useful to readers looking for information on the cultural image of Barack Obama. - Calmypal (T) 15:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• The reasons it's removed are simple, it's been discussed here before over and over and found to be irrelevant and undue weight. There is no significance to the teleprompter and Obama's life, it's just a meme from his adversaries to try and explain why Obama is seen as an exceptional orator. Presidents have been using the teleprompter in one form or another since Harry S. Truman, every President has used them since. It's just became more common over time. Even so, common sense dictates there is no real difference between using a teleprompter and looking at your notes while giving a speech. The only difference is that using a teleprompter is easier and if used properly can improve your delivery. This is just all common sense, and has been gone over in the various Obama articles too many times to count. So no, this is not something that is going to be added here or any of the other articles. It's a non-issue manufactured by critics of Obama. It doesn't matter if a person giving a speech uses a teleprompter or written notes. Dave Dial (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The public imagination has been captured specifically by Obama's use of teleprompters. If you want to have the mention of it in the article to point out the regularness of that use (as in all Presidents use one) that would be wise but the simple fact is that Obama using a teleprompter is notable because it is now part of the popular culture. While teleprompter usage's relevance to Obama's governing is debatable, the same is true of his oratorical skills in general. However the idea that mentioning the teleprompter would give it undue weight is ludicrous because the general consciousness has already given it sufficient weight Cliff Racer (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"General consciousness"? I don't understand. I'm certain the public is aware he uses the device. But its not exactly something you would find 20-50 years later in a primary or secondary schoolchildren's history book. Phearson (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thats true of most things (including the Fatty Arbuckle example I cited above and the vast majority of this article,) will not be well known in 20 or 50 years. However it is well known now, certainly a more so than many of the things that did make the cut. I'm sorry if you don't think that President Obama's teleprompter use is a "thing" but the fact that this argument has apparently cropps up all of the time shows that it pretty much is one. I won't bother debating Tarc's comment below this as it appears to be a strawman. Cliff Racer (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The "public imagination" has not been captured by this, what nonsense. Everything the president of the United States does, whether it is use a teleprompter or swat a housefly during an interview, is going to wind up in some media outlet or another, that is the nature of the office of president. That doesn't make every single thing the president does worthy of note in an encyclopedia article. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

So what makes the name, breed, and provenance of Obama's dog worthy of note, but not the fact that, as an exceptional orator, he prefers to use a teleprompter when he speaks? Isn't the number of tries it took him to quit smoking equally irrelevant? - Calmypal (T) 17:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"If I can't have X, why is there Y?" falls under the logical fallacy department as far as I'm concerned. Anything else to offer? Tarc (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a valid criticism. You think it's a big deal to include "irrelevant" information on how a famous public speaker uses teleprompters; meanwhile, there is a 100% meaningless fluff article about how Obama decided what kind of dog to buy, the dog's family, public reaction to him getting the dog, and such masturbatory non-information as "A Wikipedia article about Bo was begun on 12 April 2009." How a great speaker speaks is infinitely more relevant than what kind of dog he owns (unless he consults the dog on important decisions or something), and I see no reason for deleting references to teleprompters that does not apply equally well against the existence of Bo (dog); if he buys a dog, the media's going to report that, but that doesn't make it worthy of note. If a sentence about teleprompters doesn't belong, then surely an article about Bo doesn't belong, and you should be campaigning for its deletion. - Calmypal (T) 18:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Then bring the issue to that article. I'm sure that the editors there will be happy to discuss whatever concerns you have about his dog (He has a dog?). Phearson (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you think it is valid, but unfortunately no one else does, and please do not instruct me on what I should or should not be doing. White House pets, from Socks to Checkers to Fala, have received enormous amounts of coverage over the years, so much so that they even have their own article, United States presidential pets. This is why "but other stuff exists!" is never a valid rationale around here; evaluate topics on their own merit, not in comparison to other stuff. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not taking sides here, but clearing up policy:

• Calmypal: You're comparing apples and oranges. Wikipedia distinguishes between what's notable as an article (WP:NOTABILITY) and what content is included (WP:NPOV); the two policies are independent. "Due weight" does not balance articles with respect to each other, it just balances content within an article. The dog is considered a notable entity, and you can argue at that article's talk page whether that's true or what belongs there. But the content within this article does not need to be balanced with the existence of the dog's article or vice-versa. There's only a one-sentence mention of the dog in this article ("The Obamas have a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo, a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy."). That's the only sentence that's relevant to this discussion.
• Talc: WP:NPOV means that "If I can't have X, why is there Y?" within an article is a completely reasonable question. —Designate (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Since we're not talking about NPOV here at all, your comment is irrelevant. Also, spell my name correctly if you address me; it's only 4 letters, not terribly difficult. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Of course we're talking about NPOV. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." That's what this whole discussion is about, whether the teleprompter issue is proportionate to the president's biography. —Designate (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Those commenting here should look to add the information to Public image of Barack Obama.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fox News' Twitter feed said Obama was dead in apparent hack

This generated a major media event in whole of the world. Should be mentioned in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.190.187 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting this story in the article would give the story more attention than it deserves. No permanent harm was done, so let's move on. SMP0328. (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't give this any attention. WP doesn't usually react to the Twitterverse, no matter how important it might seem to the Twitterati. It was a hoax. Wikipedia is not a social network, nor a newspaper. This "event" is not encyclopedic. Sunray (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Today's news and forgotten by tomorrow.TMCk (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries maybe. But not appropriate for Obama's article. Hot Stop (c) 00:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think this would even warrant a mention in the Fox News article let alone here.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I already forgot about it since a few hours ago. Let it go. —Designate (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not appropriate here. Tvoz/talk 03:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not appropriate. Phearson (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not important enough to mention in this article. It might be worth including in an article about network security. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible Firsts?

Critical comments made by Obama's opponents imply that he is the first President ever to use a Teleprompter and the first President ever to play golf. I have been unable to find definitive sources for those two "Firsts", however. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Eisenhower was famous for his golf outings, at least that second thing is untrue. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Presidents have used teleprompters at least as far back as Truman. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding golf, yes, Eisenhower, but also Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, JFK, Nixon, Gerald Ford, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, and I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of others. Tvoz/talk 02:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have seen Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 play golf (although I don't know how good they are and no I wasn't with them) so I know they at least play occassionally. With that said I would say if this is all that his opponents can dig up then he must be doing ok. --Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing but chain-letter rumors I guess.TMCk (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fix the image format

Not sure why it is doing it but can someone please re-format the image of Operation Neptune Spear so it isn't in the 2012 re-election section and is sitting in the Bin Laden section where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a crowded enough section as is. If that image were moved up it would end up leaving us with barely any text in between the images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Link FA

Can someone explain why the Link FA template isn't at the top of the page? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What is "Link FA"? Phearson (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If the question is what happened to the FA star, it seems to have disappeared because too many templates are in use on this page and one more was added which knocked this one out. I moved up the FA template, which reinstated the star, but the overall issue should be addressed. I see that the Link FA template is there for about 6 other languages, but I am not an expert in the use of these templates, nor did I find the documentation particularly illuminating, So I can't answer that - but the FA star is back, and I think it's important that it remain visible. Tvoz/talk 21:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my question and glad it's fixed. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Small typing error

"His concession speech after the New Hampshire primary was set to music by independent artists as the music video "Yes We Can", which was viewed by 10 million people on YouTube in its first month and received a Daytime Emmy Award. In December 2008, Time magazine named Barack Obama as its Person of the Year for his historic candidacy and election, which it described as "the steady march of seemingly impossible accomplishments". should read "His concession speech after the New Hampshire primary was set to music by independent artists as was the music video "Yes We Can", which was viewed by 10 million people on YouTube in its first month and received a Daytime Emmy Award. In December 2008, Time magazine named Barack Obama as its Person of the Year for his historic candidacy and election, which it described as "the steady march of seemingly impossible accomplishments". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.138.24 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanks for the input, but actually that is not correct - the original wording is right: the music video "Yes We Can" was that speech was set to music, not a separate entity which "as was the music video" would mean. Tvoz/talk 04:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

START TREATY

START TREATY

This should be a separate paragraph on this page.

Why? Phearson (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Just link to the article, and make the article better. Think about the effects nukes have on people (80,000 dead at Hiroshima but more than that dead from cancer), and start working on the nuclear weapons article like that: nukes cause death, but they also lead to cancer, which is just a slower death.Randnotell (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing unhelpful trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Radical? Why is Barack Obama's ideology radical? Randnotell (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Approval/Disapproval Shouldn't there be a section about public approval? We have one for George Bush, why not our current president? The current Gallop Poll shows him at 42% approve 50% disapprove. http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx --68.37.181.39 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC) This is already adequately covered in United States presidential approval rating and Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC) It would be odd to have that in the bio until it actually has some significance. For instance, if he were to lose the election next year, mention of low approval ratings leading up to the election might make sense. But now, when we are talking about a fluid process with the numbers going up and down with no real impact, it just seems rather arbitrary. It would also seem somewhat arbitrary to pick Gallup over any other poll out there, but that's besides the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Good question.Randnotell (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Should the alma mater in the infobox say "Harvard Law School" or "Harvard University"? I would like to think that the infobox would detail the general university, and upon further reading of the article, the specific college of that university would be stated. If a person studied business at Cornell University, should their alma mater in their infobox be "Cornell University" or "Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management"? I'd like to know other peoples' thoughts on this. :) Grenadetoenails (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Harvard Law. That's what he graduated from. So long as there's a link, people will know.Randnotell (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Presidency Obama will be the 44th president, but the 43rd man to hold the office. It all goes back to Grover Cleveland who was first elected president in 1884 but was defeated for re-election in 1888. Four years later, he ran for president again and won. He is the only president with two divided terms. After much debate, historians now recognize him as both the 22th and 24th President of the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.2.116 (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC) And the question of the day is: What does this have to do with improving the article? Looks more like an inviting argument that needs to be taken to scholars, not wikipedia. See WP:NOTFORUM Phearson (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC) That's a distinction that should be made on the Presidency page.Randnotell (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Youtube controversy, Yes We Can From the main article: "the music video "Yes We Can", which was viewed by 10 million people on YouTube in its first month[257] and received a Daytime Emmy Award." The problem is that the reference does not says it in this form: "The first, in which celebrities sing along to an Obama speech, has received over 10 million hits", and this does not mean that there are 10 million (different) people who watched this video. Because the same person can watch it multiple times and hence youtube count him/her multiple times. Furthermore in the Yes_We_Can article uses (I think) the correct term: "...the video had been watched a combined total of more than 22-million times among all of the postings." Moreover see the youtube's official support page http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=154414 : "What is a view? A view occurs when a person watches your video." This is a really good question, because it's an English language question. Let me explain: The music video, called "Yes We Can," received a Daytime Emmy Award. The music video called "Yes We Can" was viewed by 10 million people. In English, you can combine the two sentences by layering one sentence inside the other. That's what a "phrase" is, I believe.Randnotell (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Consequently my suggestion is that to replace the text by : "...which viewed 10 million times..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.42.240 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I don't see the controversy, but you make a great point that we should be more precise about describing Youtube hits versus total views (whether on Youtube or other sites). Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks, in this case could you update the article? (I can not edit it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.148.222 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC) SP: AAA->AA+ See: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/08/06/credit.rating.reaction.cnn/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 It was like a political/economical earthquake in US, but still no word about this in the article. Could you be so kind as to tell me why? This would be good for it: Standard & Poor's has downgraded the U.S. from the top rank of AAA rating to AA+ for the first time in history. You're right, of course. Just need the right language, and don't need to make it a focus. #GoldStarRandnotell (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC) And why would this have to be in an article about Barack Obama? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I think in an update of the Economic policy section it would add important context but shouldn't be directly attributed to him.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I don't think his plan for Economic policy was to get the US downgraded. Phearson (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I don't think anyone is saying that he did. Bush certainly didn't want the economy to tank or us to lose millions of jobs, but it happened, and rightly or wrongly he was blamed for it. This is apparently a pretty significant situation for the US, and Obama was president when it happened. Rightly or wrongly he will recieve some of the blame, it is the nature of the job. There is no point in not mentioning it in some context. Arzel (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, we have no idea how significant this downgrade is yet, either in the short term or in the historical context in which BLPs are written. As I write this, it has had a negligible economic impact, with global markets seemingly more concerned about European problems. Politically, most of the "blame" seems to be attributed to Tea Party ignoramuses who went on TV to say that defaulting on the US debt would be preferable to closing a few tax loopholes, with some being placed on S&P itself for their faulty calculations and flawed assumptions. The few commentators blaming Obama for this issue are almost all political opponents, who blame the President if the sun isn't shining. The event is significant in itself because it has never happened before, but it most certainly isn't an Obama-specfic event. Giving it coverage here would be inappropriate, quite frankly. 112th United States Congress would be a better place for it to go, if it proves to be a significant as some people think. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Want to retract your personal attack on the Tea Party? Arzel (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC) His administration isn't an exempt of blame. Regardless though, he is the president during this and this is the first downgrade in U.S. history by a major credit agency. If the article covers his economic policy and economic statistics and debt plans, something like this shouldn't be excluded. That would be improper. The context shouldn't be wrapped around him though.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Against Inclusion - Per WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE. NickCT (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I agree with NickCT's assessment. Besides, it is Congress that has the power to tax and spend, not the President. The blame must lie squarely with Congress. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I don't think it should be in the article for square blame. Obama ran partly on a bipartisan-cooperation platform and one of the major reasons for the downgrade was Congress' indecision of which he has influence. He also signed the debt-ceiling bill and was part of the negotiations. RECENTISM doesn't apply here as this is the first time this has happened in history. Its context is due in that respect. It happened on his watched and he will be known for it. It is ridiculous to not include it in the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC) re "RECENTISM doesn't apply here as this is the first time this has happened in history." - That would seem to demonstrate a poor understanding of WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Recentism is a poor excuse here. This is a globally important situation so due weight is a questionable reason as well. As I said earlier, this is not an attempt to blame Obama, but it is an important situation and is already historical in its context. Obama will be linked to it in some manner whether you like it or not. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC) With all due respect, this should not be a matter of what we like or don't like. It is about what is appropriate and what isn't. It is impossible for anyone to know in advance the longterm significance of the downgrade within days of it happening, and it is impossible to know in advance what significance this will have on Barack Obama's life. Until a preponderance of reliable sources indicates that this debt downgrade has (or will have) a significant effect on Obama's life and/or presidency, it would be wholly inappropriate to include anything about the matter in this article. Given that this is only one of the three major credit rating agencies (and arguably the most discredited of the three), it may have little effect on anything at all anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC) You can live in denial if you want, but that doesn't mean your denial should dictate what is included here. Arzel (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC) @Arzel - Shenanigans! I call shenanigans on you sir. You think in 10 years when we look back on the Obama presidency, many people are going to be saying "Oh yeah, the Obama presidency. That was when the S&P downgraded the US's credit rating."???? Of course not. One month from now (if not a week from now), no one will remember this. WP:RECENTISM pretty clearly applies. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) The almost default on the national debt is already notable, the result of it is just as much so. Obama is just unlucky in that he was president at the time. No where have I said that this is the fault of Obama, nor am I saying that such a statement be made. However, this is a pretty historical event, and it happened during his presidency, deal with it. Arzel (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Please refrain from the acerbic language ("denial", "shenanigans" et al) both of you. Arzel, I am not out to "dictate" anything. I merely seek to inform as part of a consensus discussion. Incidentally, you may not have specifically stated that you think this matter is Obama's fault, but by conflating the downgrade with Obama's presidency, you are using guilt by association. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Please spare me the whining, you can't claim any high ground while calling the Tea Party "ignoramuses". And I don't think it is Obama's fault, I would blame Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for setting the stage with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and most of the Republican leadership for not holding their ground, but this is the result of many years of unrestrained government growth with the idea that the next person will just have to deal with it. Sounds to me like you just don't like that it occured during Obama's watch. Arzel (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC) @Nick. Including a credit downgrade (which is significant aside from news coverage, etc.) in the article isn't recent-ism. This is an unprecedented event and he was president during it. It is also the tip of the iceberg in regards to several other economic problems that he has campaigned to address. He isn't to blame for all the debt but was president during the first ever debt downgrade. I don't think there should be a section, but a mention of it. That wouldn't be over-inflation of a major first-time-ever event. His continuing response to debt and unemployment will be biographical as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC) "It is impossible for anyone to know in advance the longterm significance of the downgrade within days of it happening" (Scjessey) Probably in economy you are not very strong. To start with, from United States federal government credit rating downgrade, 2011: "A credit rating is issued by a credit rating agency. A credit rating assigned to U.S. sovereign debt is an expression of how likely the assigning credit agency thinks it is that the United States will pay back its debts. A credit rating assigned to U.S. sovereign debt also influences the interest rates the U.S. will have to pay on its debt; if its debtholders know the debt will be paid back, they do not have to price the chance of default into the interest rate. Some lenders also have contractual requirements only to hold debt above a certain credit rating." Seconldy from United States public debt: "Losing the AAA rating would likely mean higher interest rates and the sale of treasury bonds by entities required to hold AAA securities." To sum up the effect of the downgrading is longterm, one of them is that US will have to pay back more due to the higher interest rate. "Given that this is only one of the three major credit rating agencies" (Scjessey) There was also a warning from Moody's in June. "(and arguably the most discredited of the three)" (Scjessey) Own research? I would also like to comment the double standard here. Positive news are included immediately in the article. For negative news we only get the recentism, weight, Crystalball templates. It is a big problem here in wikipedia especially for political articles. I remember how large fight was here when Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize to include the major critics or not. Or when the Libyan war began: wait, it is still ongoing, wait until it ends. About the weight: I would say that the SP's downgrading is more important than the fact that for example "Obama tried to quit smoking several times..." or "The Obamas have a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo, a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy.". There's no problem or double standard here. The debt crisis more broadly, and budget negotiations, are likely a significant event in Obama's presidency, although the extent and significance are unclear at this point. It is truly not possible to know, as many economists have said. There are lots of predictions, speculations, and what if scenarios, but nothing definite. The short and long term effects of the debt downgrade, specifically, are not known, although given the stock market decline they'll likely be significant. The immediate events were initiated by the Tea Party and are mostly a creature of Congress, and the overall budget and debt involves Congress and the President. What is biographically important is the relationship of the President to these events and their affect on his life, career, and legacy. At this early stage, all we can be certain to say is that the President negotiated with both parties and branches of Congress to finish legislation with respect to the debt ceiling crisis, in the wake of which S&P downgraded the debt rating of some bond issuers including the U.S., and there was a drop in the stock market. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC) This article is a case study in double standards, although it is really just a mirror of the double standard applied to WP articles in general so no one should be suprised in the least. I do like that the Tea Party continues to get the blame even though much of the caucus voted against the debt deal anyway. Arzel (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Okay. Smoking, a Nobel Prize, and having a family with a dog are clearly biographical details. It's hard to see what makes that liberal - Milton Friedman won a Nobel too. But let's chalk it up to "the media is liberal" and leave it at that, no point debating that here. I see no harm to a neutral mention that the debt ceiling crisis, deal, and credit rating downgrades were an event of Obama's Presidency. His career is obviously a major part of his life's work but it is one step removed. We have an article for that, and not everything that's important to the job is quite as important to his life story. If and when the long term to Obama's life and career are established we'll have some solid sources from which we can elaborate. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Summary? The better question is, why did I move the summary paragraphs that were on top to the bottom? But, more importantly, was I right? And if so, why was I?Randnotell (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC) If you don't know why you made an edit to the article and have to ask other people here, perhaps you are drunk or otherwise incapable of clear-headed editing. If you are capable, explain yourself; if instead you enjoy others' attention, please look for it in some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Hoary, I know. Do you?Randnotell (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Your motivation doesn't interest me. Please turn off your computer. -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Afghan war fatalities under Obama administration and war pictures

See: http://icasualties.org/ I've thought to check out that page after reading about the deadliest day in Afghanistan: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/world/asia/07afghanistan.html?_r=1

Now under Obama 1101 US troops died in Afghanistan in less than 3 years, while under G. W. Bush this count is 630 in almost 8 years. I would say that this is an important/interesting fact. I have also found a good picture for the Afghan war section: http://www.indecisionforever.com/files/2009/10/barack-obama-coffin-salute.jpg For me it raises many red flags, that when a president leads two-three wars then there is no war picture. But we can see pictures with absolutely no value, Obama is on the grass, Obama is playing basketball etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.149.50 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should make a note of the "interesting" number of war deaths under Franklin D. Roosevelt too? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing unhelpful trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's worth running the link from the Times, and we should mention it in the article, but we shouldn't make it a focus. The Times ran casualty names during Bush's presidency, but still ran them under Obama's presidency. I would argue that that shows that the names are important, and I would argue that each one of those men meets the notability guidelines. Hard to say that if you give your life for something you believe in, you're not notable. That's true for people who die for what they believe in but don't happen to be Americans, we just don't necessarily know all their names. I would like to see all 50 million men, women, and children who died in World War II have their own Wikipedia articles. We just have to find the names, and once we've found the names, there will be space on the servers. And that's way more important than the number under the name of the encyclopedia on the Main Page. Y'all know what I mean?Randnotell (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I know what you mean, but it doesn't interest me. If you want to interest me, you'll have to be persuasive, and this is not the place. Incidentally, "notability" as defined for Wikipedia's purposes is only tenuously related to notability as most people understand the word. Please read about this in your own time and, if you wish, protest it, but not here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC) In fact, my friend, this is exactly the place to protest imprecise language. Check out David Foster Wallace.Randnotell (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversion explanation

As I alluded to in the edit summary, I reverted the last series of edits for two reasons:

1. It is standard practice to list the home page of a website, not a sub page.
2. Reliable sources all describe Obama as "African American", rather than some percentage of same. The article should reflect what the sources say.

-- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The "percentage" edit has been re-added to the article, so I have asked the editor to self-revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In case this crops up again, the editor agreed to be reverted. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

no controversy in the lead?

WP:LEAD: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. [emphasis added]

is there support for adding text to the lead about the most notable controversies concerning president Obama? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there any notable controversies in the article that are missing from the lead? The lead is very dense, so most topics are only mentioned, not discussed. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" , e.g., was controversial and is mentioned. Similarly with the health care reform bill. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is quite dense and I don't think anything significant is missing. Tvoz/talk 04:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. maybe this debt ceiling debate would qualify? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This article's a joke and a complete whitewash. There IS no criticism of Obama mentioned, and there has been MUCH of it about him and his policies in the real world. Just not here. For a man from Mars, or anyone not knowing anything about politics, they would think this guy is just the greatest thing to ever happen to America and the world. I'm again reminded of why I don't take anything at Wiki seriously when it involves politics. The bias to the left sticks out like a sore thumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.62.49 (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

unless there be any objection, i will put the debt ceiling controversy in the lead. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt anything with the word "controversy" in it will ever be approved for this article. It has yet to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.48.181 (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is controversy in the lead. People's feelings will be hurt by Barack Obama's presidency, esp. those of the folks who didn't vote for him, but that doesn't mean he's not the President. #RealSorryBoutItBirthersRandnotell (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating myself since it was removed last try, obviously any hint of controversy or anything else to suggest Obama doesn't walk on water and has made controversial moves will hurt the feelings of the keepers of the flame here. So it doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.48.156 (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Perception of inaction/ineffectiveness

Apropos of Obama's First days (as prez), the article tells us that

He ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010,[113] but during his first two years in office he has been unable to persuade Congress to appropriate funds required to accomplish the shutdown.[114][115][116]

Well, yes; but the first-days matter that's backed up by note 113 strikes me as a lot less significant than the year-after-year matter that's backed up by notes 114 to 116. There's a widely held perception that, wherever the fault for this may lie, the US under Obama is pretty much pursuing the policies set by the previous administration ("PATRIOT", extending tax cuts for the rich, etc). It's so widely held that at least one book (Kabuki Democracy) assumes it and shows (or purports to show) that it isn't Obama's fault. Yet the section Cultural and political image, where this might belong, makes no mention of it. (This section does point readers to the article Public image of Barack Obama, but the latter seems limited to discussing mere soundbite fodder.)

I do realize that a large section of WP's readership are obsessed with such matters as religion (and need to be told that the man is Christian and not Muslim, and that it's this version of Christian rather than that one); and I don't object to the material about religion, or indeed that about (relative) youth, ethnic identity, etc etc, let alone the material about specific issues (Libya and so forth); but the bigger picture seems like something stuck iin 2009. Or what am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation needs rollback

Last Thursday (August 11), User:Iamiyouareyou changed the pron file to have a non-English pronunciation for some reason (the edit summary was something to do with "not using English accent on a non-English name" or some borderline-racist nonsense like that). Now if I could figure out how to undo that and change it back to the American version that was there before I would, but I'm not well up with how the Commons works. Could somebody friendly fix this for me please? —80.1.161.16 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me one little bit if this was indeed the same guy who was edit warring on this article on the same day as that new pronunciation file was uploaded. I wish I knew how to revert that change to the commons file, but I see no mechanism other than a clumsy upload of a new file. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted that bizarre pronunciation back to the one that was there before. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from MishaKeats, 18 August 2011

In the Family and personal life section, the article stated that Obama has seven half-siblings from his Kenyan father's family – six of them living – and a half-sister with whom he was raised, Maya Soetoro-Ng, the daughter of his mother and her Indonesian second husband.

Barack Obama actually has ten half-siblings, as itemized below.

(i) From Barack Obama Sr and Kezia Obama: Abon’go (Roy) Malik Obama (1958), Dr. Auma Obama (1960), Abo Obama (1968), Bernard Obama (1970)

(ii)From Barack Obama Sr and Ruth Baker: Mark Okoth Ndesandjo (1965), David Opiya Ndesandjo (1967)

(iii) From Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham: President Barack Obama II (1961)

(iv) From Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro: Maya Kassandra Soetoro (1970)

(v) From Barack Obama Sr. and Jael: George Hussein Onyango Obama (1982)

(vi) From Lolo Soetoro and Erna Kustina: Yusuf Aji Soetoro (1981), Rahayu Nurmaida Soetoro (1987)

Source: Presidential Candidates. Org

First ever post, so please excuse any procedural mistakes in making this request. Cheers

MishaKeats (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Thank you for your request, Misha - we appreciate your input, but our text is actually correct. The children of a subsequent marriage of his one-time step-father, Lolo Soetoro, are not his half-siblings. Only the children of his father or his mother with other partners are correctly noted as half-siblings, so there are six living half-siblings from his father and one half-sibling from his mother. Tvoz/talk 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The first President to have been born in Hawaii

This is simply not notable, and we have also one much more important first in the article: "He is the first African American to hold the office."

Just checked, that for example in other US president's artilce's you don't list this minor fact: Bill Clinton the first who born in Arkansas, Richard Nixon in California, Jimmy Carter in Georgia, Ronald Reagan in Illinois etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.186.10 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed notable. It is a fact noted by multiple reliable sources (see the sixth reference for the examples chosen for this article). I would also argue it is notable because Obama did not come from one of the contiguous 48. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the "Asian writer ponders..." reference? I think that it is a good example how to give an unreliable/totally bad reference to an article, from it: "Jeff Yang wrote a column asking if Obama could be the first Asian-American president.". But from the main article and everywhere we can learn that he is the first African American president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.187.246 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. Being the first African American POTUS and the first Hawaiian POTUS aren't mutually exclusive. And the citation you refer to has the interviewer (Martin) saying he'd be the first POTUS from Hawaii. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Being the first POTUS from a particular state is not noteworthy; what IS noteworthy is that he was the first from outside the lower 48.Estil (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Excessive linking and unintuitive piped links in the lead

Excessive linking

Is there any way to reduce the amount of "blue" in the lead? Currently, approximately 50% (1065/2119) of characters (excluding spaces and the pronunciation of Obama's name, as well as hidden text and formatting such as [[, ]] and ''') in the lead are part of a wikilink. The breakdown, by paragraph, is as follows:

• 1st paragraph: 108/263 characters = 41% "blue"
• 2nd paragraph: 177/373 characters = 47% "blue"
• 3rd paragraph: 323/707 characters = 46% "blue"
• 4th paragraph: 457/776 characters = 59% "blue"

This makes the lead more difficult to read and essentially buries useful links to relevant articles in a sea of blue.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Unintuitive piped links

There are a number of unintuitive piped links in the lead. I understand that their purpose is to minimize the amount of text, but "easter egg"-type links are not reader-friendly and are almost entirely meaningless in print versions of the article. The links which caught my attention are:

Link (as it appears)	Wikicode	Notes
first	[[List of African-American firsts|first]]	the text that follows is a link to African American
Democratic primary	[[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004#Democratic primary|Democratic primary]]	the preceeding text is "March 2004"
keynote address at the Democratic National Convention	[[2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address|keynote address]] at the [[2004 Democratic National Convention|Democratic National Convention]]	the link to the 2004 DNC could be removed: e.g., "keynote address at the Democratic National Convention"
gradually withdrew combat troops from Iraq	[[Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq|gradually withdrew combat troops]] from [[Iraq War|Iraq]]	it seems unnecessary to link to Iraq War: e.g., "gradually withdrew combat troops from Iraq"
Afghanistan	[[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|Afghanistan]]	Afghanistan is a separate article about the country
kill	[[Death of Osama bin Laden|kill]]

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Chess

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/08/almost-all-american-presidents-play_19.html

Probably add: "Barack Obama plays chess.". My wild guess that this can be more important/interesting than the fact his dog's name is Bo.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.127 (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If "almost every President" played/plays chess, how is it notable? Also, that reference is just somebody's blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

But she notes also a reference, anyway there are lots of hits for Obama+chess. Furthermore I don't understand you, lots of US presidents also had got dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.127 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Truman was actually quite a good pianist, for what it's worth.[1] Nixon played piano too, but he was a little stiffer and more workmanlike.[2] Everyone knows Bill Clinton played sax.[3] Most modern presidents played golf and jogged. Perhaps we can have a list article on passtimes of the presidents? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, you are bringing pretty bad examples: from Harry S. Truman: "He got up at five every morning to practice the piano, which he studied twice a week until he was fifteen". And Bill Clinton: "He was in the chorus and played the tenor saxophone, winning first chair in the state band's saxophone section."; addition to this the article mention multiple times the saxopohone. In other words your examples just confirm me that the chess should be in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.127 (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was just chatting, and very amused by Truman and his piano. I don't have an opinion either way about chess and Obama. The dog's a sore point, though. Everybody who wants to add something says that the article talks about the presidential dog, so it might as well talk about X, where X is something about smoking, basketball, teleprompters, golfing vacations, whatever. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama being the first born outside the lower 48 and first born in 2nd half of 20th century should be included

Okay, everyone knows how historic it was that he was the first President of African American decent. But I think it's also just as interesting and noteworthy (though it doesn't get as much attention) that he was the first born outside the lower 48 United States (as would have McCain if he had won) and the first President born in the second half of the 20th century (they made a VERY big deal about Kennedy being the first born in the 20th century). I keep trying to add these in the intro but a few others are making excuses for deleting them. It's just so annoying trying to make contributions only for them to get zapped on some technicality. I can understand insisting on "reliable sources" if the entry is of a questionable or controversial nature or if it's something we're otherwise not sure about. But in my case, there is no real dispute that the above is true (Wikipedia is quite clear that common sense/common knowledge statements don't need sources). And if we can include in Jimmy Carter's article that he was the first born in a hospital, I don't see why we can't include the above. Estil (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What it is is trivia, there is nothing extraordinary about half-centuries. If you have a problem with something in Jimmy Carter's article, then take it up at Talk:Jimmy Carter. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If you were paying attention, I was NOT saying I had any "problem" with including Carter being the first born in a hospital; I was using it as an example. And yes, many history/President sorts of books do point out this first.Estil (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a very high profile and high-traffic article. It is best to achieve WP:CONSENSUS for such changes before making them. In the event that you make such a change and it is reverted - perhaps you didn't know about how closely watched this article is, for example - that is an even stronger sign that you should be here looking for consensus for the change.

Having said that - I am opposed to mention of the items you've mentioned - especially in the lede - as mere trivia. While your points about JFK and Carter are correct, they are more meaningful in my opinion. To make note of which half of a century a president was born in invites us to then pay attention to which decade...and then what? Clinton was noted as the first president to be a member of the Baby Boomer generation, but...that generation is well-documented and reported and has been for decades. Second half of the 20th Century? Not notably different than any other slice of time. Lower 48? Also not so notable, and indeed I think non-American readers might find the wording more confusing than illuminating.  Frank  |  talk  20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on this page has already run against including that he's the first president born in Hawaii, and I'd put the "48 states" and "2nd half of century" factoids in the same boat, just not relevant to a biographical understanding of the man. It is important that he was born in Hawaii, and that he is fairly youthful, came of age in the 1960s and early 70s, etc. What isn't so important is that he was the first. If another president had been young or born outside the continental US, so what? Obama would still be Obama. That's where the sourcing comes in - if most accounts of Obama don't see fit to mention these, that's a sign to us that the reliable sources of the world don't consider it worth stating. There are 50 states, 6 half centuries, and 44 presidents - every president is going to be the first at lots of things. George Bush was the first president to lose a battle with a tortilla chip, and his father the first to throw up at a Japanese state dinner, and Jimmy Carter the first to vanquish a swamp rabbit (sheesh, I can't believe these things merit an article). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Your second-to-last statement starting with "George Bush was the first..." and pointing out all those frivolous things was rude and disrespectful. You are essentially making a mockery of my attempted contributions. And I never said that just being the first born from a particular state was notable; my point was that him being the first born outside the lower 48 (or 48 continuous or continental US if you prefer). In fact, the 2008 election article mentioned (or did mention) the fact that either candidate, Obama or McCain would've been the first from outside the lower 48 (McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone). So if it was good enough to point out during the election, why not point it out here?Estil (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, although in W's case, I think it was a pretzel...thankfully, not mentioned in his article, though.  Frank  |  talk  03:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Trivia. --John (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are two separate issues here. Being born in the second half of the 20th century is not notable. Being the first to be born outside the continental United States is notable, as is Jimmy Carter being first to be born in a hospital and Bill Clinton being the first to be born after World War 2.

I will concede the "first born in the second half of the 20th century" as being eh, "not so notable" but as the person just above me pointed out, I think being the first born outside the continental United States should be included at least. After all, prior to the 2008 election, did we ever have any serious Presidential contenders from outside the lower 48? And yet for the 2008 election, three out of the four Pres/VP candidates in the 2008 election (except Biden) were born outside the lower 48!Estil (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, only McCain and Obama were born outside the lower 48; Sarah Palin was born in Idaho. Still, it does not appear folks agree this is notable anyway.  Frank  |  talk  02:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Foreign policy

This article on U.S. President Barack Obama seems to be all in all quite good to me. However, the section "Foreign policy" does not contain anything on Obama´s political standings and actions toward general world politics, even towards Europe and Russia. Maybe even China, I don´t know now. And what about the world monetary problems of today? Other economic problems? Nowadays topics like first actions for 2012 election campaign? Well, there is a large field for new serious contributions. -- Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

First Days: Guantanamo EO

The first days section is very light, and ought to include more substance. I propose the Gitmo EO be included. The Administration itself stressed the importance of the three EOs it signed on January 22, 2009 as representing a clean break from the previous Administration. Considering that the critique of certain foreign and national security policies of the Bush Administration remain the same in substance in this Administration, the Guantanamo Bay Executive Order is quite notable. Here are some articles from when it happen that explain the context in which he signed them:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-22/politics/guantanamo.order_1_detention-guantanamo-bay-torture?_s=PM:POLITICS http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7845585.stm

And here are some establishing the importance of the fact Guantanamo Bay remained open one year later despite the Executive Order:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/22/politics/main6129494.shtml http://pubrecord.org/politics/8687/president-obama-loses-guantanamo/

Oneinatrillion (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Libyan war is over

Proposed text: "Libyan war ended with an estimated total killed on both sides including civilians: 20,000." (source for the number: 2011 Libyan civil war). But two more wars to go, war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not so bad from a Nobel Peace Prize winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.142 (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

First, the Libyan Civil War isn't over. Second, you need to provide sources. Third, you need to not approach this as POV or with non-sequiturs like his Peace Prize (remember that Obama didn't ask to be awarded it, and is in no way beheld to that award when deciding his executive actions), fourth, Iraq is only one on there where US combat operations are actually officially over (though it has been argued by the Executive Branch that they never actually began in Libya). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I could give a source, but that is in Hungarian. My wild guess was that it would be good news for Obama fans also that the president is the commander of two wars and not three wars. Furthermore the Nobel prize: he could refuse it, there are several examples for it in the history of Nobel prize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.142 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Libya isn't Obama's war, or even America's war. The US provided operational support under the auspices of NATO, but US involvement in Libya in no way compares to US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"US involvement in Libya in no way compares to US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan" original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.142 (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Moreover just to see: "Libya isn't Obama's war" is not true: see 2011 Libyan civil war, in that in the right column I see Obama's name as a commander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.142 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? It isn't original research unless it's introduced into the article. Right now it is just my opinion; however, it is so obviously true that US involvement in Libya is orders of magnitude less than US involvement in either Iraq or Afghanistan that my opinion cannot be in dispute. As far as Obama being a "commander" by virtue of where his name appears on a Wikipedia page, I think you'll find the list of commanders is really quite long. Obama's status is no more significant than any other "commander" on the list and it appears largely because the US is a key partner in NATO. The "war" in Libya is being waged by the rebels with (occasionally) some NATO assistance. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be worth a passing mention as part of the larger series of Arab Spring events that happened during his presidency. Obama isn't the primary participant in this, and his personal involvement hasn't been singled out by the sources as being particularly noteworthy, it's just one of the many, many things about which you can say that he was the President when it happened. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Heritage

Closing to avoid attracting trolling -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I imagine this has been discussed innumerable times before but isn't "African-American" a bit vague and misleading a term to describe BO's ethnic background? Considering he is half white and half Kenyan, shouldn't the proper term to use be "mulatto"? -Red marquis (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC) See Talk:Barack_Obama/FAQ. Q2. We're done here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC) This question has been asked over and over again, and is included in the FAQ, so I won't waste much time here. I just wanted to point out that "mulatto" is NEVER the proper term. It's like asking if the proper term should be "colored" or "negro." And, in case you didn't know, the answer on both of those would be a resounding NO as well.Jdlund (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC) My cousin has an African-American Dad and an Caucasian Mom and he is classified as Bi-Racial so what makes the President so different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEfirestone (talk • contribs) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC) I read your FAQ and its wrong,you cant take everything the media tells you serious.He is Bi-racial PERIOD. Preceding unsigned comment added by CEfirestone (talk • contribs)08:46, 17 July 2011 When you say [something-something] "PERIOD", do you mean that an explanation or discussion is not warranted? If so, please go away, because nobody will take your dictates seriously. If on the other hand you haven't merely read the FAQ item but have also digested it, and if you can here argue cogently against it and say why "bi-racial" is the better term, then go ahead. Please provide clear evidence, but also be concise. At the end of your comment, hit "~" four times in a row to "sign" it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Is there any consensus that he's "African American?" Literally, he's clearly multi-racial, since is mother was white. He wasn't born or raised in africa, and wasn't raised in a household influenced significantly be african culture (i.e., his african father left the household when he was a small child). People I know from africa laugh at the American label "african-american" - since people on the african continent do not consider the african continent as defining a culture or people. I'm not taking a poll/vote, but curious if there's any reasoned consensus on this subject. John2510 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC) What people from Africa feel is largely irrelevant. "African-American" is more an Ameri-centric (obviously) sociological construct rather than a specific/literal ethnic identifier; here, it simply means black, or as my politically incorrect gramma would say, colored. Obama self-identifies as African-American, and the vast majority of reliable sources use the term as well. That is what we go with. Tarc (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC) On the contrary, the vast majority of reliable sources understand that he is biracial (or multi-racial), as is clearly accurate, e.g.: http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-09/politics/btsc.obama.race_1_black-candidate-black-father-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/12/is-obama-really-black-001459.php Are there any sources that clearly discuss the issue and consider him to be african american versus multi-racial? If he self-identifies as being of a single race, that would certainly be an appropriate label for the context, in contrast to his actual racial background. 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) Never mind. My correction and a single revision lead to my being banned from this article by NuclearWarfare: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John2510&diff=443125824&oldid=443124961 People will have to figure this out without me. Fortunately, this is an issue where the truth is widely known, but it's a pretty scary statement about POV censorship on WP. 05:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) See, WP:TRUTH and WP:V. You did not provide sources, and first off, never attempted to engage in debate on the talk page. This article is under ArbCom probation, and you violated it. Simple as that. Its not censorship at all. Phearson (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC) This is basically a test... since I've been told I'm banned from editing on this discussion page as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John2510&diff=443134158&oldid=443125824, which prevents my ability to even discuss the subject. Sources are above (does anyone have any good faith question about his biracial status... really???). You can say it's not censorship... just as you can say President Obama isn't biracial. Wow.... John2510 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Facepalm What part of debate do you not understand? You didn't do it, you changed the page without consensus, and here we are. Phearson (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC) And one can surely pick up a few sources that use "biracial" out of a sense of political correctness, but most still go by the African-American convention. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I find this entire argument completely superfluous. The thing is, he is fairly dark skinned, therefore people of African decent can and will relate to him. This is regardless of what he decent "technically is" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.17.221 (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC) President Obama described himself as African-American on his census form. He considers himself black, not multicultural (which was also a Census option this year that many young people checked. African-American is just a word, not an identity, but all words are ultimately just words. As a Southerner, and incidentally a white Southerner Not Unlike Our Father JimmyJims Whales, whose ancestors probably owned slaves and committed many other atrocities throughout our family and the region's history, I can say that it does matter that Obama was not descended from slaves. But, my friends, I believe it's more notable that he's the first African-American President of the United States. And that's the edit I would make if I were still making edits, and not asking questions on the talk pages. Randnotell (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I think his Census form choice and the analysis of it settles it at "African-American" or "Black." http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/nation/la-na-obama-census4-2010apr04 Oneinatrillion (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Wow, I have never seen wikipedia drop the ball so far as this. Some very questionable arguments above. Let me ask this - so if Vanilla Ice said he identified himself as an African American would that be enough to warrant it as 'fact' and be included on wikipedia? Of course not. There is obviously a serious and disturbing history of classifying anyone who is not 100% white as whatever ethnic minority they perhaps appear to be. However that's not factual, and wikipedia as I understand it is based on verifiable information - not how an individual 'feels' or 'identifies' as. The president is clearly as much white as he is black, and to say otherwise is clearly reenforcing a double standard. If he went around saying he checked 'caucasian' there would be no way that wouldn't be heralded as completely insane. So why is it okay for him to ignore the white half and say he's 'black'? User:jtw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.218.0 (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama Approval Drops to New Low of 40%

See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/148739/Obama-Approval-Drops-New-Low.aspx. This should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.40.195 (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes! This stunning drop from 41% to 40% must be given maximal coverage. A minimum of 4 or 5 paragraphs would be the only way to do this precipitous loss of support justice. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's 43% today. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm For those of you who may stumble upon this and unable to see the sarcasm. The answer is no. Phearson (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a new low, it's just a new low for Barakandroll.

It helps to think of the Executive Office of the President of the United States as distinct from the man, but including the man.

Not unlike a Wiki user's page and his talk page ;-) Randnotell (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just ignore those that don't like the President. Do these people or their views even matter? Why can't they ignore Wikipedia and start a competing site that has accurate information if the truth matters so much to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.33.26 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Can't we just ignore those that don't like the President. Do these people or their views even matter?"--too bad Bush supporters didn't have that luxury during his Presidency. :P Estil (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Chief Justice's oath flub

Ought to be mentioned? Reading "First Days" it felt absent. Thoughts? Oneinatrillion (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Extremely minor incident, and it already has a paragraph in Presidency of Barack Obama. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted someone's response when I signed my comment! They said the incident was minor and given a paragraph under Presidency, which I read and thought was interesting. Didn't know he was the 7th President to re-take the oath. But, I would say that noting that the Chief Justice flubbed the oath and that it was redone the next day at a private ceremony could be mentioned, as the First Days section is just a blurb anyway, and ought to include a fact like that among his first day EO's was an order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay within one year. Oneinatrillion (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's been proposed and rejected before (rightfully IMO) as being too minor and not relevant enough for the article. It's just a curiosity that has no bearing on Obama's life or the course of his presidency. The Guantanamo promise probably ought to go, because nothing came of it. It may be worth mentioning somewhere that Obama's plans / promise to close Guantanamo didn't come to pass (which is different and more relevant than just saying he made the promise). But even that's probably too minor a fact for this article. There's hardly enough room here for major things that did happen, much less listing things that didn't happen. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I also have to ask has there been any recent coverage of this flub or was it a story that died out quickly? Personally, I don't recall hearing anything about this for years.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the argument that the flub is trivial. I disagree, but do understand that argument. If this has been previously debated and decided, that's cool. It does appear in the Presidency article, so it is somewhere. I would very much disagree, however, that the signing of the Guantanamo Bay EO and then that EO's failure to be enforced within a year as stated is notable for first days. My explanation follows below since its different from the flub discussion. Oneinatrillion (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Inauguration of Barack Obama have more detail on this, including sound.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

simple spelling correction

The last sentence under the heading "Economic policy" reads as: "The compromise overcome opposition from some in both parties, and...". The word 'overcome' should be 'overcame'.W1 m2 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone fixed it already. Veriss (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama's grades

I've found: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Barack_Obama's_grades_in_college Probably it is worthy to add it: "Barack Obama has not released transcripts for his grades from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law. He has also not released his SAT and LSAT scores. No explanation has been offered for not releasing them." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.148.241 (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, rumor and speculation from a non-reliable source, repeating assertions that a black man could not get into a top school without an unfair advantage. No explanation for why he doesn't produce his papers on demand. Assuming he's actually a man: he hasn't released his DNA results either. — kwami (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty in this article about what he has done...there's no need to start listing the things he hasn't done...such a list could never be complete, nor could consensus be developed as to which select items should be included on the list. So he hasn't released his transcripts. If there is something noteworthy about it, let's find some citations from reliable sources that attach some significance to it, then we can see if there's some consensus to include it.  Frank  |  talk  01:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't released my SAT scores to the public either. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to release mine. Anyone want to see them? Jokes aside, this comment is wrong."No explanation has been offered for not releasing them.""American Presidents, and any Americans in general, are not bound to disclose their education records. Please refer to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MishaKeats (talk • contribs) 10:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Frank - exactly right. Tvoz/talk 00:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Places named after Obama

In which subarticle are places named after Obama mentioned? I found a school in Dallas, Texas named after him: http://www.dallasisd.org/obama WhisperToMe (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

List such as that can get long and mundane. Imagine all the schools and places named after Lincoln or Washington. Best to keep that sort of stuff of of an article about a person, but you may want to begin an article on the subject yourself.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Lincoln and Washington have longer histories, while Obama is still a president. So the former two would have longer lists. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This already exists - here: List of places named after Barack Obama . Tvoz/talk 02:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Famous people biracial african american

Just wondering, Why is it that some famous biracil African Americans, like Tiger Woods and Barack Obama are only noted in for being African American and not biracial. That in my opinion is not reporting history correctly. I believe that is what the biracial term means. MltMlt1963 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see Q2/A2 in the FAQs above. Tvoz/talk 04:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

American Jobs Act

The speech on the American Jobs Act should be mentioned in the 2012 presidential campaign section as it is widely regarded as the kick off for his campaign. FranklinDObama (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a pretty big violation of recentism. Remember that this is an overview biography of his entire life, and it is way to soon to call that speech biographical significant to the man's entire life. Perhaps it should go into Presidency of Barack Obama. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been following the TV analysis of the address to Congress, and I've not seen anything to support the statement above that "it is widely regarded as the kick of for his campaign", so unless there is some decent sourcing it probably shouldn't be connected with the 2012 campaign anyway. This does seem to be a major policy initiative, however. There is already an enormous amount of media coverage devoted to the address, so I'm pretty sure the WP:RECENT issue will evaporate quite quickly. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove the Hussein

rename this article Barack Obama remove the Hussein from his name in the article cannot bear to read that Muslim name being associated with him. Mranderson56 (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hussein is part of his name. Do you believe he has some reason to feel ashamed about it and so should hide it? SMP0328. (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

He chose to use the "Hussein" when he took his inaugural oath. He's not embarrassed by it; why should anyone else be? PhGustaf (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, we will not remove it simply because someone does not like it. It is his middle name as printed on his birth certificate. Phearson (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of articles of great leaders are there on Wikipedia where the middle name is not even mentioned.why cant the same thing be done here.i really dont want history to remember him as Barack Hussein Obama but as Barack Obama.please remove the Hussein it is my request to you.please beg of you to remove the middle name man its unbearable.Mranderson56 (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's quite bearable. That's his name. Unless there's some kind of policy-based reasoning behind the request, it will stay. Dayewalker (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason there are articles on WP "where the middle name is not even mentioned" is that sometimes the middle name is unknown or can't be verified (or possibly there was no middle name). Not the case here. It is easily verifiable, and as noted above, Obama himself has made no effort to conceal it - he even used his full name when taking his inaugural oath. So there is no legitimate policy-based reason for its removal. (Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT).--JayJasper (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Missed picture

In foreign policy section there is a picture with the following text: "President Obama featured on a billboard with Ghana President John Atta Mills. In Ghana, like many African countries, Obama is very popular." This is clearly in wrong section, I don't see the connection between Obama's foreign policy and a billboard picture in Ghana. Moreover the text for me seems original resource, because it gives no reference for that Obama is very popular in Ghana. Furthermore for me it is not surprising how you manipulate the picture's text here. This picture can be found in two other wikipedia page, and let's see their text:

• John Atta Mills: "President Mills featured on a billboard with U.S. President Barack Obama"
• Ghana: "Ghanaian president John Atta Mills on a billboard with American President Barack Obama"

Do you see my problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.189.154 (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The picture has been removed. SMP0328. (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Obama at a gay party

Have a look at: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/01/politics/obama-lgbt/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

my suggestion for the article: "The president currently supports same-sex civil unions". I don't remember for such a strong support of gays from any US president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.45.165 (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, we couldn't go wrong with coverage of LGBT rights. For one, the Democratic Party (including him) have repealed DADT and are working on DOMA, and his own personal feelings on LGBT rights are notable too. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the domestic policy section, it does suffer from proseline. We could do with a section on minority rights, although there haven't been any, to my knowledge, any major strides in racial politics made under his presidency (apart from, you know, his election). Sceptre ^(talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the title of this section. How did "a gathering of gay and lesbian activists" turn into a "party". (I agree with the other sentiments above.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Humanrightsinvestigations.org

Have a look at: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/09/21/barack-obama-troy-davis-martin-luther-king/

The latest case, Obama has not saved the innocent Troy Davis from the death penalty, and killed yesterday. Moreover from the article, which I think should be suitable for our article: "He has supported the rebels as they lynched black men in Libya. He has lent his full support to Mahmoud Jibril, the rebel leader, who has approved the commission of genocide against the black Tawergha of Libya. And he has pursued a war, based on propaganda, which is killing civilians daily in Liby." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.147.196 (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that we would need more than one source to add something like this.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and from a relatively obscure organization to boot. As such it's not a reliable source. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this organization claims to engage in rigorous investigation, but I see no independent investigation... It's basically a blog with some nasty videos and pictures. Checked the domain ownership record, and it's registered to a proxy group... so it could be run by literally anybody. With the extremely heavy focus on Libyan rebels and enemies of the state, regular praise of the old regime and consistently embedding videos from self proclaimed Gaddafi supporters it could very easily be literal propaganda.--Cabazap (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames

I have an edit request to add the more prominent nicknames of Obama into the sidebar like his most common "No drama-bama"Kentpaulgta (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Crap like that does not belong in an encyclopedia, and will never appear in this article. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Would you find something like that in Encyclopedia Britannica? No. It is useless information. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well considering there is a page that already displays this, You'd think you could add considering it is valid information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Drama_Obama#Barack_Obama — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentpaulgta (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

although the existence of the nickname technically makes it valid, it does not mean it is relevant and should not be in this article.AcuteAccusation (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's a page that has this info, why does it have to be doubled here, given the article is very long already? (magicmulder) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.82.64.222 (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced materials

From the 3rd paragraph: "Several events brought him to national attention during the campaign, including his victory in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary for the Senate election and his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004."

Without any source that it was a national attention. Furthermore note that he was an Illinois Senator for 8 years, so it is hard to say that he was unknown.

And this is also: "He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004."

I believe it is true, but for lots of non-US residents this is not known fact. So for them it would be great to add a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.158 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The entire introductory section is a summary of what follows, and fully comprehensive sourcing for everything in the lede is available in the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Could someone looks at how the templates are set up at the bottom of this page please? The issue is that there are links instead of templates down there. I've not seen anything like it before, and I am not sure how to fix it. Thank you in advance. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have requested assistance at the technical Village Pump. Since the issue appears to affect only the final thirteen templates in the article, perhaps the article has exceed some sort of transclusion limit. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw this at WP:VPT, and can offer a technical fix, but it is not without its own problems. Essentially, I have substituted a large number of templates, so that they are no longer transcluded. You can see the result at User:NSH001/sandbox 2.

The technique is to use Special:Expand templates to substitute some of the citation templates - in this case, those placed as list-defined references in the "Notes" section. This process is NOT straightforward - Special:Expand templates won't expand templates within <ref> ... </ref> tags, so the ref tags have to be edited first, then Special:Expand templates applied, then the tags edited back again, then the wikitext finally pasted back into the article (I used an external text editor to edit the ref tags).

The advantages are that fewer templates are now transcluded, so the limits are no longer breached, and the page will load a little faster.

The disadvantages are the difficulty of future maintenance: firstly any global changes made to the citation templates will no longer be reflected in the article; secondly it becomes much harder to edit these citations (it might even be necessary to maintain a separate subpage (probably of this talk page) to hold the un-substituted version of the templates).

Because of these disadvantages, I have not made any changes to the article. Instead, I think it should be discussed here first. If you decide to use it, all that's needed is to copy/paste the wikitext from the "Notes" section of my sandbox version over the corresponding wikitext in the mainspace article.

My own view is that this should be regarded as a temporary fix only. This is a Featured Article, so it can and should be trimmed, either deleting material altogether, or moving it to appropriate "Main" articles.

--NSH001 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative comment. I think you're correct that the best approach, in the long term, would be to trim the article of unnecessary references (the article includes hundreds and multiple citations often are used to support a single fact) and information that should be moved to sub-articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed (diff) the following YouTube reference in the section '2008 presidential campaign': "Presidential Campaign Announcement" (video). BarackObamadotcom. YouTube.com. February 10, 2007. Retrieved January 29, 2009. The information which the source supports is noted in the other sources that are cited: Chicago Tribune (two articles) and BBC News. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The templates are only a part of the problem. The whole article, in my opinion, needs a major re-write, with substantial trimming. --NSH001 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the "exceeding template call size" errors. I think it has too many references, over 300+, and then there are 10 different refs within those 300+ citations. Needs major trimming! --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

When I swapped out the Barack Obama/succession tmp, that fixed the tmp call limits error. I also mved that tmp to not be a subtmp of the main tmp, because I think that was also adding to the tmp calls. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That does look like a better solution for the immediate problem (BTW, renaming the template makes no difference to the overhead caused by calling one template from another). If no-one here has any objections within the next couple of days or so, I will delete my sandbox version. The best solution, of course, remains a re-write of this article. --NSH001 (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure about the template subpage causing problems or not. The major problem now with the article is that it has too many citations, the "cite web" template must also be causing the template call overload. I've been working on paring them down and combining the duplicates using "ref name", but it is somewhat difficult to decide which citations to keep and which should go; and I'm sure someone would disagree with my choices! Does anyone have any suggestions? --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

first african american president

This is inaccurate. He is the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.4.70 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The only one of something is still the first of something. We call the first child in a family the "firstborn" regardless of whether another has yet even been conceived. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If we go make it "only" African American President, then we'll just have to change it when the next is elected, so why make extra work for ourselves. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with logical and cobra, plus changing it to only african american president makes it seem as if there will not be another.AcuteAccusation (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well first of all he is Biracial, even though I know he identifies as African American, the beginning of the article should at least state he is the first president of African American descent or first president of Irish/African descent. Educatedlady (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's already been discussed a trillion times. He's an AA and identifies as AA. Period. B-Machine (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nor does the article in any way deny that he's biracial, and does discusses his mother and her roots. Given that he wouldn't be the first Irish president, it isn't notable. While in countries other than the US (such as South Africa) being biracial did often put you in a different class than a more "pure" (terrible choice of word here) background, it has not in the US. What has mattered in the US is what you looked like, and looking at all darker of skin than "white" has meant you were "black," or far worse adjectives. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Obama's hair

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348933/Has-Barack-Obama-dyed-hair-black-hide-greying-locks.html

Worth to include say: "Observers have said the U.S. President's hair has changed colour dramatically because of the pressures of the job since he assumed office two years ago." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.185.42 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The same can be (and is) said about almost every US president. It isn't notable. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there is similar articles in relation to President George W. Bush hair. Not notable. Phearson (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My hair underwent a similar color change at a similar age. I wasn't the the President. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, being the president is stressful. Anyone's hair would go grey- look what happened to Tony Blair! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.75.196 (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A man who was never president... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Still, he was an equivalent. But you get the idea. Phearson (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

Today I added the sentence, "On October 21, 2011 President Obama announced that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq in time to be, 'home for the holidays.' [200]" but I'm having trouble doing the footnote correctly as it's my first one, and I'm not very good at understanding the directions in the tutorial. Could someone please check the reference and tell me if I need to do anything differently. Carmaskid (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Section: Israel

The following sentence does not make sense and is incorrect, as written: "Before Adm. Mike Mullen, now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had visited Israel for over a decade, but in 2010 he made two trips, bringing his total to four.[207]"

The information in the original source that was cited, reads, "Meanwhile, visits by the Israeli and American military brass have jumped dramatically. Since becoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2007, Adm. Michael Mullen has made four visits to Israel, two of them this year alone. Before Adm. Mullen, no chairman of the joint chiefs had visited Israel for over a decade."

I suggest the text would better read, "Adm. Mike Mullen, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made four trips to Israel since 2007, two of them in 2010. Prior to that time no Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had done so for over ten years." Since I cannot make the edit, I would appreciate it if an administrator did so. (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Great suggestion. You don't need to be an administrator to edit this article, by the way. You just need to accumulate a few more edits and you'll be good to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Carmaskid (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to reflect the retirment of Adm. Mullen last month, tonight I changed the sentences listed above to, "Before his retirement in September 2011, Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made four trips to Israel during his four-year tenure, two of them in 2010. Prior to 2007 no Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had done so for over ten years,"Carmaskid (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the Obama article, not the Mullen article. Likewise, mention of the death of some old governor (forgot his name) wouldn't be included because that old governor has nothing to do with Obama. BAMP (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Adm. Mullen visited Israel on behalf of his Commander-in-Chief, and did so at a higher frequency than other Joint Chiefs of Staff have done. That is why it has been included in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

He's the 43rd President

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention, Obama is in fact, not the 44th, but the 43rd President of the United States, as Grover Cleveland held the position twice non-consecutively. 124.184.247.174 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why Grover Cleveland is traditionally counted as both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. Most reliable sources count the Presidents this way, and will probably do so if there's another President who serves nonconsecutive terms. szyslak (t) 12:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur, and this matches the pages for all presidents.204.65.34.216 (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Best solution is to have a footnote.BAMP (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

How to handle vandalism

I have been told that this article is on article probation.

That means you need to discuss changes. If you do not, that may be vandalism. Anyone can revert vandalism. To do so is helping Wikipedia. Please don't vandalize!

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi Balloon Boy (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't restore your edit again. You would simply risk being blocked. SMP0328. (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Whole lot wrong with this article

This article seems like it is just a bunch of pieces mixed together. It is very disjointed and the selection of what appears is not comprehensive. It could be a result of political supporters or opponents crafting together an article. The percentage of online people supporting him is slightly greater so that affects the article.

There should be entirely new people reviewing this article because the people who wrote it probably put a lot of time into it but the product is not good. I am not going to be a reviewer except to choose one paragraph.

The paragraph

As president, Obama signed economic stimulus legislation in the form of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009 and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act in December 2010. Other 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 and the Budget Control Act of 2011. In foreign policy, he gradually withdrew combat troops from Iraq, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, signed the New START arms control treaty with Russia, ordered enforcement of the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya, and ordered the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. In April 2011, Obama declared his intention to seek re-election in the 2012 presidential election.[4]

The critique

This is in the introduction. It is just a selection of laws that people have selected. Some of them are not really Obama related, only happened to be President. This is because some of them were not his campaigning. If we use that measure, then the Lady Gaga article could have mention of some of these bills (just kidding).

My advice is to work on one paragraph every two weeks and really see if you need it. Start with the first paragraph.

With this sample paragraph, listing these bills looks like an ad. One way to fix it would be to see what are Obama's major accomplishments. They are the stimulus bill (don't need to have those fancy bill names as they are now chosen because of politics), Obama's health care.

Another way to fix it Another way to fix it would be to have a new committee of people who have never written about Obama and have them craft an article. Then compare and contrast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hood River (talk • contribs) 05:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Version 2, Getting rid of obscure parts of the article not very related to the Obama bio

Yet another way, probably better is to step back and pick 4 paragraphs to do an introduction.

paragraph 1: general introduction as the 44th President, African American, Democrat, etc.

paragraph 2: Previous background as Hawaii, Indonesia, etc. College where. After college and law school. Illinois Senate, US Senate.

paragraph 3: Very broad Presidential summary. Term marred by recession, had stimulus, Obama health care, possible loss of House due to Obama health care. Not a lot of law mentioned here.

paragraph 4: Other things, like author, Nobel Prize, but certainly not the 2010 Siena College poll (which shouldn't even be in the main article...why is it even there!) Hood River (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles as important as this one are subject to a lot of scrutiny, and are edited on an incremental basis. There's no mechanism in Wikipedia for appointing editing committees or requiring all the active editors to recuse themselves. If you have a specific proposal, please feel free to make it for editors' consideration. I do agree that the scattershot list of presidential actions is incomplete and hasn't been weighted properly by the importance or the extent of Obama's role. I disagree about the Siena College poll, at least as a matter of approach. This article is a biography of the President, his life and career, and for that purpose presidential scholars assessing him as a president are a lot more relevant than various journalists writing about specific events. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)c

I agree with Wikidemon's assessment that the article is a scatterbrained list of presidentials events. Voting is silly because then it will reflect his popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonwiki2 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Some ideas mentionedd are good in theory. There should not be a laundry list of bills that President Obama signed. I removed a few trivial ones, trivial in the sense that President Obama did not campaign hard for these bills, did not make it an issue. If we let a lot of less relevant stuff be in the article, soon it will be an article about "The World during Barack Obama's Presidency", not "Barack Obama".

Here is what I removed:

The first bill signed into law by Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, relaxing the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits. Five days later, he signed the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover an additional 4 million children currently uninsured.

On October 8, 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a measure that expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

On March 30, 2010, Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, a reconciliation bill which ends the process of the federal government giving subsidies to private banks to give out federally insured loans, increases the Pell Grant scholarship award, and makes changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

If you don't agree, cite where Obama was a key driving factor in these laws or cite articles where he made it a big deal. Issues that Obama made a big deal include closing Gitmo and the stimulus packages. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Please don't remove cited content without first establishing a consensus for doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverted back. Please note that you may not be a bully but you are doing bullying because you offer no reason. Wikipedia allows people to be Bold. My boldness is very logical, not radical. I offered a good explanation. You offered none. Therefore, my logical prevails. Please do not change it back. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, your "boldness" is vandalism. You have removed cited, relevant content without even making a passing attempt at establishing a consensus for doing so. My reversion is clear proof that your edit was disputed, so removing the content again is a violation. Restore it immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of removing that material, how about added to it in order to clarify how much Obama was involved in the passage of those laws? BTW, each of you needs to assume the other editor's good faith. SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are being criminal in falsely accusing people of vandalism. Very little was removed. All was discussed. If you disagree, you should state in a calm and logical fashion... "I think 'The Trivial Act of 2009' is an important part of President Obama's bio because he campaigned about it a lot before being President". If you give that kind of reasoning, I will probably agree with you. Instead, you just say "no, no, no, I am throwing a temper tantrum, I accuse you of vandalism and genocide and every other crime I can think of". Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To SMPO0328, you are more mature than Scjessey. Go for it. Research how President Obama was for the bills and how he made it a big part of his campaign. Obviously, he was for it a bit because he signed it. However, just being for it a bit is not enough (otherwise, we would have to list all the bills that he signed). Here's the deal. I will let off the article for a day but Scjessey or others should not knee jerk insert the material back in. Come on, people can think of the reason to include what and not include what! Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

@SMP0328 - I did AGF. See here for further details.

@Hi Balloon Boy - You can't just go around deleting great chunks of a featured article without first establishing a consensus for doing so. Having been told this, to then do so again was vandalism. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The removal of the hate crime paragraph makes sense because Obama did not make it a big issue about hate crimes. The Ledbetter part some people may want since it was the first, but not really a notable first. So hate crimes, no, Ledbetter, maybe if enough people really want it. Sorry, HBB you win some, lose some. Same to Scjessey...please both of you get along.BAMP (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why have you removed that paragraph? It was a key piece of legislation, important to an enormous group of people. Your edit summary is also disgracefully misleading. Please self-revert. -- 15:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the gay legislation is very important to gay people. However, this article is about Obama, not Gay Rights. I see that there is a consensus that these laws are an obscure part of Obama's bio. Not one person has provided evidence that they are major parts of the Obama bio. He did not campaign hard for it, like he did for the Gitmo closure or for Obama health care changes. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop this. First of all, the user that started this thread has been indeffed, and it's not so strange that both Hi Balloon Boy and BAMP are disrupting this article once again, since they are socks of JB50000. Which someone will need to add to the SPI case. Irritating that the socks are not already blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There are 300M Americans and maybe 300M foreigners interested in Obama. If only 1 in 100,000 come to write for Wikipedia, then that means 6,000 people are editing the article. Rather than listen to the voice of statistics, you just falsely accuse others who support a neutral Wikipedia, not your political motivations.Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Dave Dial aka DD2K is disruptive. The suggestions I made are very good; remove some obscure laws that are not part of Obama's bio. In response, Dave Dial is disruptive and falsely accuses others. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Balloon Boy, I'd be careful acting like you have a moral high ground when it comes to disruptive behavior in the form of accusatory language. Remember that you have thrown many accusations against other editors in this conversation yourself, including a false claim of criminal behavior. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You have just falsely accused me! I looked at your link The link you provided is[4] . It accuses nobody! Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

To quote you from the very first sentence in the link I provided, "You are being criminal in falsely accusing people of vandalism." That is an accusation of criminal behavior. Furthermore, I'd point out that you are now engaged in making misleading or outright false edit summaries while continuing your edit war. That also hurts your claim of a moral high ground, and may itself violate policy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This issue is being discussed at WP:ANI at the moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I do think mentioning these laws is important and contributes to understanding Obama's presidency. Glancing at the pages, Obama actively came out in support of these, signed them, etc. They were a part of his Presidency and should remain. Down the road, I can see them being removed - particularly the Lilly Ledbetter Act - as Obama passes more legislation, but now it seems fine. II | (t - c) 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  The Lilly Ledbetter Act was the very first act President Obama signed into law, which makes it highly notable. I'd of thought that was the last thing to get rid of. It's like the baseball from Hank Aaron's first home run. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  It's relatively inconsequential and forgettable. Put it in the article focused on Obama's legislation or presidency, maybe. That baseball is a trinket, and Obama's first act can be looked at as equivalent to distracting trivia. II | (t - c) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  Inconsequential and forgettable? I'm sure American women will appreciate your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with II and Scjessey. The act may be something that women like but it is not a major part of Obama's history. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the article. BAMP (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's weird! You started editing shortly after Hi Balloon Boy got blocked, and then proceeded to remove content just like he did. I'll assume good faith here and just chalk it up to an amazing coincidence. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read this article for years and was amazed at how badly it's written. The common thing I've seen is that if people don't have a leg to stand on, they accuse people of being socks. Very childish. Just explain your editorial ability and suggestions, not attack others. BAMP (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't those signings to moved to Presidency of Barack Obama? That seems a much more logical place for them, since they are more significant to his presidential career than to his entire life. Twenty years from now, they could still be notable for his presidency, but not for Obama the individual. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

They are in the article as part of the summary style process. The content of the sub-articles (like Presidency of Barack Obama) is summarized here, with particularly notable stuff given a little more prominence. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus, Torchiest, II, Balloon Boy, me, that trivial pieces of legislation are not part of his biography but could be moved to the Presidency of BO article. Please support a well written article, not a poorly written one with your pet laws inserted. BAMP (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous. There's no consensus for removing that content (and one of those people has been blocked). We are just at the early stages of talking about it and hardly anyone has had a chance to weigh in. Also, cut out the "your pet laws" stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Article is poorly written, Israel section is an example

This article is poorly written. The trouble is that a few people defend the status quo.

Let's take one section, Israel.

That section poorly defines Obama's biography in relationship to Israel. It mentions strong support and the missile system.

Off the top of my head, if there is an Israel section (does it need to be there?) then the spat with Netanyahu is relevant as well as settlements. Obama's trying to stop Gaza from being a member might be another issue.

Basically, the selection of issues is lop sided. It seems that one Wall Street Journal source is used to justify the content.

There should be consensus to include Israel. After there is consensus, there should be consensus to what to include. Baring any consensus, nothing on Israel should be included, not the status quo. My vote is that some things be included, not a total removal of the section. BAMP (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

All I can see is you deleting and changing huge chunks of the article without first seeking a proper consensus for doing so. I suggest you revert the article to the last stable version and then maybe people will be willing to talk to you about what you wish to achieve. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop making these changes without consensus. For a featured article that has been praised to be declared 'poorly written' by you seems a bit much. Dave Dial (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but normally articles are based on sources, not "Off the top of my head". Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Biased wording needs fixing: State of Union address

current version

On January 25, 2011, in his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama focused strongly on the themes of education and innovation, stressing the importance of innovation economics in working to make the United States more competitive globally. Among other plans and goals, Obama spoke of a enacting a five-year freeze in domestic spending, eliminating tax breaks for oil companies and tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, banning congressional earmarks, and reducing healthcare costs. Looking to the future, Obama promised that by 2015, the United States would have 1 million electric vehicles on the road and by 2035, clean-energy sources would be providing 80 percent of U.S. electricity.

Why it is bad=

There have been many, many State of the Union addresses. Most of forgettable.

Focus strongly? That is opinion.

Importance of innovation economics? That is rehashing the speech.

Weathiest Americans is just campaign speech.

Possible more neutral version

On January 25, 2011, Obama delivered his yearly State of the Union Address. The speech included ideas on education and to make the United States more competitive globally. He proposed a five-year freeze in domestic spending, eliminating tax breaks for oil companies and increasing the top tax bracket (commonly called "Bush tax cuts" which were extended in a 2010 deal), banning congressional earmarks. Obama promised that by 2015, the United States would have 1 million electric vehicles on the road and by 2035, clean-energy sources would be providing 80 percent of U.S. electricity. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't even know why that paragraph is in the article. How is one state-of-the-union biographically significant?--NortyNort (Holla) 01:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to question that too. It's probably more apt for the Obama Presidency article. Dave Dial (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Did Obama hit the King`s dream?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "If Martin Luther King were alive today I believe that would remind us that unemployed people have a right to condemn the arrogance of Wall Street without demonizing all those who work there.", said U.S. President Barack Obama at the opening of the National Memorial Center dedicated to M. L. King in Washington, according The Guardian. The question for discussion is: Did Obama hit the King`s dream? Perhaps is to early to say so, but I think it`s the best way. For this thesis I have three strong argument: Obama is the first African American President of the United States, he was and still is fighting for peace in the world, and capitalism with a human face. 78.2.49.135 (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record, where do you believe that quote belongs in the article? SMP0328. (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

It seems the Israel section needs some revision to reflect Obama's policy positions. Right now it reads that he supports a "two state solution", and while I am sure he has said those words in his speeches, that is not his policy. He officially opposes recognizing Palestine as an independent state and officially opposes allowing them a vote at the United Nations, unless they agree to various hardline conditions such has agreeing never to have an army and not having a right of return. No such conditions are put on recognizing Israel an an independent state. 97.91.176.159 (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources please, and I'm afraid that only his actual policies and opinions can be included. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Tishrei 5772 05:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.211.105 (talk)

Sources? Really? Is it not established that he officially opposes recognizining palestine as a state while he does recognize israel? It seems people who are locking his page should already be able to source this, but here you go. No only does he not recognize them as an indpeendent state, but he opposses others doing so, and vows to veto it at the united nations if they vote to recognize palestine. Once again, israel is recognized fully with no conditions. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44606988/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/obama-abbas-us-will-veto-palestinian-statehood-bid/ http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-to-abbas-u-s-will-veto-palestinian-statehood-bid-at-un-1.385932 97.91.176.159 (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is clear from his speeches (and sources) that Obama does indeed favor a two-state solution; however, the United States is very particular about how this will occur because of its close relationship with Israel. Just because the US did not support the most recent effort to gain Palestinian statehood, it does not follow that the US opposes Palestinian statehood. I don't think the political ins and outs of the US policies with respect to Palestine and Israel are appropriate to explore in a biography of Obama's life, though I think the specific positions of the Obama administration should probably be made clear in Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "Sources, really". We cannot simply say "OMG everybody knows that". That's not how Wiki works. Reputable sources, without synthesis on our part.204.65.34.246 (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so we have a source. but your are still not changing the article. There is infact no mention of his opposition to a Palestinian state at all. And it actually tries to imply the opposite, saying that he is for a two stzte solution, which is clearly not the case, He only recognizies Israel, not Palestine as a state. 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.176.159 (talk)

Obama's statements regarding vetoing the Palestine resolution are very clear in that he does support the eventual creation of such a state, but not through unilateral action by the Palestinians at the United Nations. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Short memo: Obama cannot recognize any state or country. The US does or doesn't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This is nitpicking but...

I was under the impression that the correct wording is "As [b]P[/b]resident, Obama administered over..." etc. This article uses "As [b]p[/b]resident, Obama administered over..." etc. Are we sure this is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's correct. When addressing Obama as President, as in President Obama, it's capitalized. When preferring to him as 'the president', it's not. Or something like that. Dave Dial (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

DD2K is correct. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says the following: "In generic use, apply lower case for words such as president, king, and emperor. (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference). In parts of a person's title, begin such words with a capital letter (President Obama, not president Obama.)"Carmaskid (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama II ?

Despite the FAQ Q4, the "II" is incorrect because

• The person in question does not us the "II"
• "II" is never used in any significant way with reference to the person, e.g. of the hundreds of official documents the person has signed in the past three years, how many have included the "II"?
• The birth certificate is not dispositive; that is the one document that the person had the least choice in drafting.
• A great many people change their name over the course of their lives, including many women upon marriage
• The pronunciation guide in this very article omits the "II". If the article is going to include the "II" then it must also tell people how to say it.
• Where it is necessary to distinguish this person from his father, the latter may have the suffix "Sr." without affecting the name of the child.
• The "II" makes wikipedia look silly and out of step with reality. rewinn (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly does. It suggests that we are talking about someone else but the current President of the USA, because nobody ever uses that name to refer to him. Surely WP:Commonname applies. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that something here looks silly and out of step with reality, but it's neither Wikipedia's consistent application of WP:Commonname to determine article titles nor it's application of WP:MOSBIO to include a biography subject's full name in the opening sentence in order to convey full and accurate information to those who might actually come to an encyclopedia to learn something. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree Almost every biographical article Wikipedia that Iv'e seen uses the full name of the person in the opening sentence and in the vast majority of case no one has complaind. For example, I am not aware of anyone complaining that we use Richard Milhous Nixon despite the fact that the middle name is not usually used. I have also not seen anyone demand that we don't use James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. since he is best known as Jimmy Carter. I don't see why this is any different.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's true that we shouldn't use the "II" just on the basis of his birth certificate. Does he ever use it today? —Designate (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization Suggestion

I understand that this is a featured article but there is always room to fine tune any written piece, and sometimes it is helpful to have new eyes look at it. The following is an outline of this article as it currently exists.

Barack Obama

• Early Life and Career
  • Chicago community organizer and Harvard Law School
  • University of chicago Law School and civil rights attorney
• Legislative career: 1997-2008
  • State senator 1997-2004
  • US senate campaign
  • US senator: 2005-2008
    • Legislation
    • Committees
  • Presidential campaigns
    • 2008 presidential campaign
    • 2012 presidential campaign
  • Presidency
    • First days
    • Domestic policy
      • Economic policy
      • Health care reform
      • Gulf of Mexico oil spill
    • Foreign policy
      • Iraq War
      • War in Afghanistan
      • Israel
      • Lybia
      • Osama bin Laden
    • 2010 midterm election
  • Cultural and political image
  • Family and personal life
    • Religious views
  • Notes etc.

I have read this article multiple times, recently. I think that it ends discordantly. All the personal information belongs together. I'm not quite sure about the appropriate placement for the section on cultural and political image, as I need to go back and read that section again. It might make a good transition between the sections on personal and professional life. I left it at the end of the list for the present. IMHO, the following reorginazation would increase the readability of the article. The new outline would be similar to the following:

Barack Obama

• Personal life
  • Early life
  • Later family life
  • Religious views
• Professional life
  • Early career
    • Chicago community organizer and Harvard Law School
    • University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney
  • Legislative career: 1997-2008
    • State senator 1997-2004
    • US senate campaign
    • US senator: 2005-2008
      • Legislation
      • Committees
  • Presidential campaigns
    • 2008 presidential campaign
    • 2012 presidential campaign
  • Presidency
    • First days
    • Domestic arena
      • Economic policy
      • Health care reform
      • Gulf of Mexico oil spill
      • 2010 midterm election
    • Foreign arena
      • Iraq War
      • War in Afghanistan
      • Israel
      • Lybia
      • Osama bin Laden
    • Cultural and political image
  • Notes (etc.)

In the Domestic arena section we might consider adding information on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and something about Political opposition as, historically, that factor is germane to any president's legacy. If that were added, the 2010 midterm elections should be included there.

I have read the discussion on length and citations and if the article needs to be split, what would be included here under "Presidency?" I'm willing to do the reorganizing if doing so is agreed upon. I could work on it in my sandbox. Also, is there a standard guideline telling what basic sections to include in the biography of a living person? (Guess I'll go look for that after I post this.) Thoughts and comments? Carmaskid (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually prefer the order as it is at the moment. First it chronicles his career (the most notable aspect) in chronological order, then how he is perceived, and finally his personal life. The current order is logical. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that all information on his personal life should be grouped together, rather than beginning and ending the article, but I'm willing to go with the flow.Carmaskid (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Scandals (Solyndra and Fast and Furious)

Why is there no mention of current and ongoing scandals involving the whitehouse, namely Solyndra and Fast and Furious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.159.149 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The obvious answer is because outside the conservative echo chamber, they're not really scandals. Heck, one thing that isn't mentioned is that the head of the committee who is investigating the Fast and Furious project also received the exact same briefing as the Atterny General at about the same time as Holder, but had no issues with it then. (This is all on record.) So in effect he knew as much as Holder about the project, but choose to ignore that fact and continue a partisan attack. So no they don't need to be mentioned in the personal biography of Barack Obama. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. So far there is noting regarding this that would make it relevant to add to a person biography of Obama (Ie cost him the election).--70.24.211.105 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not wikipedia's purpose to try to influence candidates winning or losing elections. Instead, it is wikipedia's purpose to present readers with reliably sourced, notable information. Therefore, I propose that the following be added to the article:

In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.

The Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign, and that the company had also spent a large sum of money on lobbying.

173.75.156.141 (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

As this is a biographical article about Obama, not an article about the Obama administration (meaning, the entire executive branch of the US government during the Obama administration), there would have to be some sourcing that this is biographically relevant and significant enough to include. Every US President has one or more scandals running concurrently (or controversies, or attacks and complaints by the political opposition, whatever you would call it), some lasting a day or a week, but very few about which you could say that it's a part of their life story. If you were to write a 500-page book about Obama five or ten or fifty years from now, how many paragraphs would be devoted to his involvement in Solyndra or Fast and Furious? Probably zero to three, unless it turned out to become his political undoing, something that seems very unlikely and that we won't know for some time yet. Now consider that this bio is about 10-20 pages long, not 500, so you have very little room. If that went in, something else would have to come out. Moreover, it would have to be written in a neutral tone, not in the voice of the opposition's accusation by inference or the political pundits' coverage of the same. If you were to pose a similar question a few months ago there were probably a few other scandals then that are largely forgotten. So the short answer is there just isn't enough room for minor things, and no sourcing that this is anything but an ephemeral political grievance. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactaly, we should wait to see if anything significant happens to him first due to these events. Examples can range from Obama being impeached over this, he resignes, he loses the next election and there is compelling evidence that these events were a major factor in the defeat. So far nothing of this nature has occurred.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi everyone. I posted this on Dr.K.'s talk page, but he/she refused to just offer this there and insisted I bring here so the experts could weight in. Anyway, I'm just curious, I might have missed something but why did he/she remove that from this article, I personally didn't like the section title but the section itself seemed well sourced with reliable sources. Maybe you can offer up some clarification. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 03:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a Grundle2600 sock, who's banned from editing. Previous sock here [5]. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Dr.K. can explain his rationale for removing the section, but I suspect it is similar to the reason that I've blocked the editor who posted it. Because this is a returning POV warrior who has been creating new accounts, getting them autoconfirmed, and then adding this same ridiculous attack section with the same ridiculous edit summary and the same ridiculous section title. I don't understand how anyone could think that section is appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Floquenbeam and Acroterion. You answered in the usual expert and competent way that I have come to expect from experts. I cannot add anything more. I am also glad that after a brief edit-war on my talk User:CR90 was finally persuaded to come and ask the experts at this article talk and share the discussion with the maximum number of editors for the greater benefit of the encyclopaedia, instead of confining the conversation to my talk with its limited audience. As for my reasons for reverting the sock and their edits, let's just say I have developed a feel for it. Although I have to admit that this time was a bit more obvious than other times. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't justify the past actions of the user, and looking at the removed passage, some of is is not neutral, however I am seeing a lot of referenced information. Surely some of that can be salvaged?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Usually sock edits no matter how good are reverted mercilessly. But if you think you can salvage something please talk to the experts on this talk. This was my original intent anyway. To bring this issue here to be handled in the most efficient and expert manner. With this I bid everyone goodbye. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to salvage. It is an idiot laundry list of fringe criticisms that Grundle2600 has been trying to paste into various Obama-related article for the past year. Yes, year. This is a persistent, vile, community-banned little troll. Just being sourced is never a sole criteria for adding material to an article, this particular passage has been discussed to death at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, all i nthe archives section there. Tarc (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Having already said my goodbyes it is rather unusual for me to return so quickly. But I briefly came back to thank Tarc for their most illuminating comments. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How are these things "fringe criticisms"?

[redacted]

Too much. If you wish to propose the addition of an individual item here, feel free to do so, with sources, and reasons why it is significant enough to add. Trying to add a long list of criticisms all at once is simply not appropriate. In fact, I see little value at all in adding any criticism. See Noam Chomsky for an article with a good amount of criticism. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Obama's Civil Rights Law Practice

Obama's Civil Rights Law practice is something he was particularly proud of, and historically will position him as a president, but it is a curious omission that absolutely no mention is made of it in this encyclopedia entry? (see video of excerpted interview below at 2:10 below)

"(I) started my Civil Rights Practice representing women and minorities- workers who had been discriminated against on the job" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b91nsPDQFUk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.186.178 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article: "In 1993 he joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.[43]" NW (Talk) 14:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

infobox

Seems clear to me that the infobox should not include his position as a Senate subcommittee chair - we use the infobox to highlight major positions held, and subcommittee chair does not rise to the level of notability of State Senator, US Senator, and President. It's appropriately in the text, but in order to keep the infobox useful, it's best to keep it streamlined and as uncluttered as possible. I removed it from the infobox - any disagreement? Tvoz/talk 03:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama is not African-American

We've had this many times. see FAQ. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just wanted to point out that Obama isn't African-American. African-American refers to the people whose descendants were traded in the slave trade, mostly in West Africa. His mother is white and born in the states. His father is black and was born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii. Obama has no claims to african-american heritage. Rather, he is Kenyan-American. He is black, but not african-american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.184.254 (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Please look at Talk:Barack Obama#first african american president above. Surely we're not going to label people here according to perceived skin colour. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC) I agree it is not our job to go against virtually all reliable sources have said and that is that he is African-American. Also do you have any reliable sources that only descendants of the slave trade are allowed be called African-American because if not your position would be considered original research and likely not be given much consideration especially since reliable sources have called him African-American.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) You do realize that Kenya is an African country and that all immigrants to the USA from Kenya would indeed still be called African-American and their children would still be African-American even if half European-American? Alatari (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Also see Q2 on Barack Obama/FAQ.--JayJasper (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC) What "reliable sources" are these? Its factually incorrect. His racial makeup is clear. Outer skin color does not define race. He is Bi-Racial or if you prefer mixed race. He is not black nor is he white. Saying he is african-american any usage of the term. Yes it is important to correct such fallacies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.68.88 (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC) What DOES define race? Your opinion? Many wise sources these days declare that someone's race is the grouping with which they self identify. That makes Obama African-American. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Apparently feel good slogans and not fact. The article perpetuates a lie and does a disservice to reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.68.88 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC) What is listed as his race is misleading. see FAQ Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Obama is only half African-American. A full-blooded African-American is yet to become President of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Prose quality There are a lot of paragraphs that begin with the phrase "On [date], [year], ...". There are also a lot of paragraphs that are only one or two sentences long. Could we not change this to make the prose more professional and engaging to read? 138.38.59.78 (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Should the word "not" be in the last sentence of your comment? Because the way it's worded now, I have no idea what you want done with the article. SMP0328. (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Perhaps if you pretend the words are rearranged as the more colloquial "Couldn't we"? Fat&Happy (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying. Yes, that is what I meant. It just seems to me like they are obvious areas for improvement, and they're not really what you'd expect from a featured article. 138.38.59.78 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Stable version Canvasing not relevant to this article The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have been placing on some talk pages around Wikipedia to try to raise awareness of the template, and eventually open it up for discussion and maybe more standard implementation. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconusp t c 22:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Obama isn't "african-american" I invite everyone to go to the Wikipedia page African-American. The definition, with sources and all, clearly states that African-Americans "are citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa and are the direct descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States.". It is a widely published fact that his father migrated to Hawaii from Kenya. Obama is not a "direct descendant of enslaved Africans" and therefore cannot be considered and African-American.--Jacksoncw (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC) You should note that in the next paragraph of the article you cite, it cites Obama's presidency as a recent important event in African-American history. Also, read further to the Who is African American section, as it is not as simple a matter as you make it out to be. This topic has also been discussed here extensively, see FAQ #2 above. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, it states how one section of the government defines it, but the definition still stands, and it still excludes Obama from that group. And reading the FAQ, the definition stated greatly differs from the one in African-American. This is an issue as we can't cherry-pick definitions to fit our descriptions as we see fit. I believe this issue needs to be handled immediately.--Jacksoncw (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Indeed. We use self-identificatin and descriptions as reported by all major RS's.TMCk (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Jacksoncw - you are citing one sentence of African-American to support your theses, and ignoring another sentence in the very same paragraph. That is incorrect for two reasons; first, it's inherently contradictory, and second, wikipedia is not a primary source. The citation in the very sentence to which you refer (currently footnote 3 of that article) is to [6] which defines African American as "A Black American of African ancestry." which Obama is. To the extent that African-American may say otherwise, it contradicts its own sources. rewinn (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC) First African American President No he is not. He was not born in Africa. He was born in Hawaii, so at least he should be called the first Hawaiian President. That is well documented, but yet you still continue to call him 'African'. He is not. He is of mixed race-mulatto, is the term. His father was from Africa-not this man. His white mother-from Kansas. It seems that this is ignored. If your going to have facts-state them correctly. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircarrier (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC) I´m sorry, are you saying that African Americans have to have been born in Africa? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Aircarrier, did you read the article past the lede? The very first paragraph after the introduction, on his early life an career, states: "Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at Kapiʻolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (now called 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 English and Irish descent. His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a Luo from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya." So what is being ignored? His coming from Hawaii is stated first. His mother being from Kansas, and her ethnic background is stated second. Last, after both of the others, is the origin of Obama's father. What is being ignored in this article? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article about this Wikipedia article?

I know this may sound a bit mad, but stick with me.....

As the top of the talk page points out, this article has been cited by no fewer than fourteen different media organisations. Big ones, too: CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, etc. etc. Doesn't that then mean that there are sufficiently enough non-trival mentions from reliable sources that we could theoretically write a Wikipedia article about this Wikipedia article? I'm sure that I've seen articles get passed through WP:N with considerably fewer sources on their subjects... I know it might seem like quite an odd thing for an encyclopedia for write an article about, but let's not forget that we also have an article about buttered cats. 86.168.92.16 (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, largely because it would make absolutely no sense. You'd just be repeating this article or having list of media outlets that have cited it. Either option would be pointless. I could see if maybe there was a significant controversy surrounding the article or some reason to talk about it other than "hey it's been cited x number of times." There have been some I know who throw this article around as an example of Wikipedia bias, but it's nowhere near enough of a viable topic to warrant its own article somehow. Just because there are other pointless articles (seriously buttered cats? That's a new one for me) doesn't justify writing another one that would honestly just be a list of citations without any real reason for having said list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree we need something more than the media have mentioned the article. We would need something more important like the Wikipedia biography controversy which caused a lot of negative reactions and according to the article one of the main reasons for the creation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Nothing like that has yet to happen.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Cites to the various articles could be mentioned at Wikipedia:Press coverage, if they aren't already there. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Non original teeth

From the most recent Obama video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyjkVAgRFRk you can see that the president has got too bright white color teeth, see also the shape and the structure of the teeth. For me it suggests that he has got only denture. It should be good for the article if somebody could obtain an official medical report of the president's teeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.188.14 (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. That video is not enough evidence to launch such a request for this article. Doc talk 12:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were proven, why would that be important in this article? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Such a "fact" would not only be non-notable. It would be totally irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

How is Obama "African" if he was born in America?

no idea where the "bias" is. For everything else, see FAQ Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shouldn't he just be "American" What is African about President Obama? He was born in Hawaii right? So he's American. I understand it is socially wrong to be racist against any race except whites, and it is always okay to be bias and for any other race especially that of African descent, but really, this is Wikipedia. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unbias and fair? If I am a black man and I am married to a white woman, and I have a child, that child is not "black" or African American, that child is mixed race, and if that child is born in America, he or she is "American" One is African American if he or she was born in and came from Africa to become American. Please, put aside your anti-white racist bias ways, stop preaching for unbias ideas while doing bias things, walk the walk if you are going to talk the talk, and be fair. If you don't, I hope someone with the money to sues Wikipedia for allowing this bias trash to continue. President Obama is not black, he is not African American, he is mixed race and he is American. use logic instead of social brainwashing to write your articles. 50.47.145.163 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The African American thing, and our reaction to it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think we need to be careful. Some of the attempts to argue this are a bit silly, but the hidden discussion above is a telling one. The USA is far more concerned with racial issues than many countries, certainly more than mine, so it demands racial descriptors, where other countries may not even bother with them. African American is the current politically correct alternative to the now totally unacceptable Negro or nigger. In its own way, it's no less racist. It's just the current nice way of describing the same people. While not being as diplomatic as he may have been, the poster in that now hidden discussion was saying that he would prefer everyone to be just called American, rather than having racial labels. I tend to agree with him.

His post may have looked like one of not understanding. I think he understood very well.

Rather than simply jumping on these posters and hiding or deleting their comments, a little engagement may go a long way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would go the opposite way; just hat the convo, point to the FAQ, no dialog. All that winds up happening when this is engaged is tempers start to flare from dealing with it for the nth time. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So an American who would prefer that America was less obsessed with race issues is to be ignored? Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression the person you're referring to is quite obsessed indeed. He accuses editors of "anti-white bias", for example. So what do you propose in terms of improving this article? Do you suggest removing all references to Obama's race? szyslak (t) 22:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What he, you, or I prefer has no real bearing on an an encyclopedia project, though, does it? The term "African-American" is a socio-political construct, not necessarily a literal description of one's lineage (though it can also be that). That is a fact of American culture. As long as the subject describes himself with this term and the majority or sourced material does as well, that is simply what we must use in the article. While holding a discussion of race identity might be quite informative, it is really beyond the scope of an encyclopedia page of an African-American politician to do so. All of these "do'nt call him A-A cause he's really biracial" comments may have a ring of literal truth behind them, but it isn't our place to adjudicate that. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Another point is that all sentient beings in the US (and many other places) know that "African American" is the appropriate description. Accordingly, and given the nature of many comments from new users on this page, it is hard to tell the difference between honest confusion ("why is Obama described that way?") and trolling. This is not the place to educate passers by. Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely absurd that you are claiming that African American is 'no less racist' ..than 'Negro' or 'nigger'. And to then claim the anon ip just wants a less race obsessed America, even while the aonon ip claims an "anti-white racist bias" while threatening to sue Wikipedia is just too much. Too much. I usually respect your opinions, even if I disagree, but this is just beyond absurd. The thread above should have been removed, not hatted. I tend to want to keep threads rather than delete because of record keeping, but it adds absolutely nothing and violates Wiki policies. Engage this type of tripe? I think not. Dave Dial (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have said racial, rather than racist, but I still think you missed my point. African American describes exactly the same people as Negro. It's just currently accepted as the nicer term. I also agree with you that the anon IP editor was way over the top with his post. I just see a hint of censorship, and certainly more political correctness, in the abruptness with which these issues are handled here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY all nonsense about whether Obama is black or white should be removed (deleted, not hatted) as indistinguishable from trolling. Debating the disruption is just causing the trolls to laugh, and guaranteeing their invigorated participation here in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY is all about vandalism. That's not what this is about. Vandals go straight to the article and screw it up. This is a place for discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, when you accuse people of "censorship", you're not assuming good faith. Those who hat stale discussions and remove trolling do so not because they want to silence discussion of this or any other issue, but because such threads are disruptive, they don't help us build an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a forum. If we devoted our time and energy to explaining the same thing over and over again, we'll never get anything done. Whether you like it or not, it is highly significant to a great majority of people that Barack Obama is the first African-American President, just as it's highly significant that your own Julia Gillard is Australia's first woman prime minister. This reflects significant facts of history, not Americans' "obsession" with race. I'm sorry the article's mentioning his racial background makes you uncomfortable, but these are the facts of the world. szyslak (t) 04:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I must be a poor writer. People keep misunderstanding what I'm saying. I too think it's highly significant that Barack Obama is the first African-American President. I've never said otherwise. And I think you need to be more careful with your own choice of words. Of course those who hat stale discussions and remove trolling do it because they want to silence those particular discussions. They want to silence those discussions because they believe such threads are disruptive. That's a valid point of view. I feel differently. I would be willing to respond to posters with different views on the African American thing. I don't feel "disrupted" by it. Why should I be prevented from discussing it just because you see it as a waste of time? HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. So take it to your own talkpage, and politely discuss why anyone who disagrees with the trolling IP is an anti-white racist bigot. This talkpage isn't the place for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Now is the time to stop responding to this and move on. Dave Dial (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NDAA

Obama Signed NDAA. Should be mentioned in the article.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that is something done by every president every year, the notability of the 2011 one needs to be justified. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What would get mentioned is if he hadn't signed it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The American Civil Liberties Union stated that “President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”

The listing of every press release from the ACLU about a politicians actions would probably not meet neutral point of view guidelines. It may however prove useful as a reference on the specific article about the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles

I noticed that a hidden category was added to this article placing it to the Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles. While on the face of it, it seems innocent and also worth while. However, this article sees a lot of people looking to push their POV into it. This is one of the main reasons why it is semi-protected and also is on article probation. This sort of feedback mechanism on this specific page will most assuredly be gamed by those very same people wanting to push their POV. Consequently, feedback from that survey would be tainted by responders bias and would be considered unreliable or not truly representative of the entire Wikipedia reader community. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Controversy" and "Criticism"

How is it that controversy and criticism hardly appear in this article. This president has one of the most extreme policy agendas and is largely devoid of any substance. If the purpose of Wikipedia articles is for a fair and balanced picture (NPOV) I think a bit more attention to the alternate points of view on this president should be included. See George W. Bush's article and search for "criti" or "controv" and you'll find a much more complete record. 70.26.39.203 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have specific, concrete suggestions with supporting reliable sources, then suggest them. The changes you wish to see here won't happen if no one actually proposes any changes. Coming and complaining with no actual concrete suggestion will not result in any change to the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Not one I share. I am neither well versed in Wikipedia nor do I have the time to devote to that. However I do know that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I also assume (which is a reasonable assumption) that this page is watched by hundreds if not thousands of people). My contribution to this issue is pointing out that there appears to be a disconnect between this article and reality, especially given the grade this article gets. I invite others to weigh in on this issue. Not going to work and making concrete changes does nothing to alter the validity of my point. Some are like water some are like the heat, some are the melody and some are the beat. I don't have the time or motivation to change it, but given how important this article is I am sure other contributors can now that the issue has been raised. 70.26.39.203 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is uncannily familiar. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For a good example of how much criticism needs to be in an article on a controversial figure, see Noam Chomsky. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia articles used to be "fair and balanced", but since the meaning of that phrase has changed to mean "extreme right batshit insane opinion machine" we've adopted "neutral and appropriately weighted". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

70.26.39.203: Please be specific. What is the most glaring omission in your opinion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And add a reliable source such as blogger or youtube. 600 empanadas de carne calientes (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[ "This president has one of the most extreme policy agendas and is largely devoid of any substance." ] Do you actually not realize that that ISN'T a neutral statement? 207.237.209.237 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's start with criticisms of his health care plan, the handling of the assassination of Bin Laden, and military strikes in 3 countries without congressional approval. 174.52.9.91 (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is an article about Obama, not an article about criticism of Obama. You can write well sourced facts about his health care plan, Bin Laden's death, and the military strikes, but once you start writing what other people thought about those things you're off-topic. (And opening a massive can of worms.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, three is criticism all over George W. Bush's page that falls under what you would categorize as "off-topic" yet it was a good article. I completely disagree with you and think it is absolutely on topic to discuss the criticism of his policies and actions in as much excruciating detail as has been done on George's page. There has been boat loads of it from reliable sources, and if you want specific examples I would be more than happy to give you a long list of accomplished media outlets that have criticized ; yet it has all miraculously managed to stay out of this article. I don't think we should make a criticism section, I think we should add these criticisms to their respective sections to keep the article coherent and NPOV.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure we could find boat loads of criticism, and therein lies another problem. How would we decide how many boat loads to include? AND PLEASE DON'T TOUCH OTHER EDITORS' POSTS. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something in the article, it's not as though there are praises of the man put in there either. By which I mean I don't see anything like "many claimed x policy to be the greatest thing ever." I definitely could see notable reactions, positive or negative, to specific policy initiatives in the sub article about his presidency. I could even see strictly factual information such as popular opinion polls about a particular issue, but even then I would tend to think that should be on the article about his presidency not his biography. Bottom line, whatever is added should be verifiable facts and not opinions (whether they be the editors' opinions or quoting another person's opinion). For instance, verifiable information that a particular policy had a particular result (be it negative or positive) would be acceptable, but a pundit or blog simply saying "this policy sucks" would not be acceptable.Jdlund (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC).

This article is poorly written in general and that's unfortunate considering the subject is the current President of the United States, however i'll keep my comments germane to the issue of this objection. For Wikipedia to remain relevant it needs to be NPOV. We have to take our personal politics out of it. Anyone doing an honest comparison of the Obama article to that of almost any dead or living political figure has to admit the former is blatantly lacking any mention of well documented criticism and/or opposition. I could list many but let's see if we can achieve honest consensus on a few easy points. If you're discussing Obama's legislative record you should mention he has been criticized for 130 "present" votes in the Illinois State Senate. In the Health Care Reform section it absolutely needs to be noted that the bill was passed while all major polls showed opposition from a majority of Americans. It also needs to be mentioned that the constitutionality of the bill is scheduled to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Let's just start there, although there should be mention of Tony Rezko, Van Jones, Obama's refusal to release academic records, Solyndra, comments about Israeli borders, involvement in Libyan conflict without congressional approval, etc. Falcon50c 12:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not keeping your personal politics out of it very well at all when you use language like "Obama's refusal to release academic records". That's journalistic sensationalism, pretty obviously POV driven, rather than objective language suitable for an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A statement of fact cannot be sensationalism. If you prefer a gentler word than "refusal" then by all means use an alternate, but my statement disclosed no point of view at all. Unfortunately, it's obvious your primary concern is not the quality of this Wikipedia article, and that's happening much too often. Falcon50c 02:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you take a neutral political stance on the subject matter, you find the "criticism" can only be found in articles and websites that take a particular political stance. It's a very sensationalized topic, and one has to wonder why, in the grand scheme of things, it matters, if only to validate suspicions of a people with a particular political view. Your statement disclosed, perhaps not yours, but definitely, a political viewpoint just by bringing it up as something credible for inclusion. This "criticism" specifically doesn't cut the mustard. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We must trust the power of wikipedia. If there is encyclopedia worthy criticism of Obama, someone who has the know how and the legitimate sources will update the site. There is no conspiracy to keep his page clean. Perhaps after his presidency, legitimate issues that have had ample time to be studied and verified will show up. Just because wikipedia is in real time, doesn't mean every little fault people find with Obama needs to be written. If that were the case all public figures would have extremely long, messy and lop sided articles. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.150.198 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Judicial appointments

Several other recent Presidents have a separate heading in their article for judicial appointments. I would suggest pulling out the Sotomayor and Kagan appointments from the "Domestic policy" section and putting them in their own section (perhaps with additional information on appointments to lower courts). —DavidConrad (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. George H. W. Bush also only had 2 nominations and his article has a separate section, as well as a spinout to George H. W. Bush Supreme Court candidates. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that there is also a Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates article. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

is this section going to be added? With the recent appointments it would seem even more appropriate. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

never mind, i see these are specific to judicial appointments. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2012

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I request this line be edited: "Barack Hussein Obama II (Listeni/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office.

Barack Hussein Obama's mother was white, and his father was African American (black)

The correct terminology is "Mulatto" So, it should read that he is the first Mulatto to hold the office. Mixed or Bi-Racial is also acceptable, Bi-Racial preferred.

His mother was white, why is obama's white heritage not reported?? According to your own Wiki, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto This is the definition of obama's racial background. So to be correct and accurate, obama's true race should be input into the wiki, not denying one race or the other.

Ghostsouls (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Obama self identifies as African American. That's what we use. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that almost all reliable sources use African American and few if any use Mulatto. Also that term is considered offensive in the US so it is defently not the correct term.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No. See the answer to the second FAQ (near the top of this page). -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The concepts of race and ethnicity are defined socially and culturally and, in the case of federal data collection, by legislative and political necessity (Hayes-Bautista and Chapa, 1987). OMB, for example, states that race and ethnicity categories "are social-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature" (OMB, 1997a). Scientific findings provide empirical evidence that there is more genetic variation within than among racial groups; thus, racial categories do not represent major biological distinctions (Cooper and David, 1986; Williams, 1994; Williams et al., 1994) and instead capture socially constructed intersections of political, historical, legal, and cultural factors. See source: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/iomracereport/reldata1.htm It is cultural now in US to call Mulatto an African-American, so the term "Mulatto" has been outdated and not used anymore in government statistics (see Census 2010). Innab (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bi-Racial is a socially acceptable term. Why do people assume if there is one drop of black blood, the person is therefore black, that is a ridiculous argument to make, and it denies an entire race. So you people here may want to be a shill for obama, but it is a FACT he is NOT the first African American President he is the first Bi-Racial President. Society, Social media and News stations have used the word Bi-Racial. So, the bias of Wiki is apparent, and can no longer be used as authoritative and factually correct. What obama himself identifies himself with is not the issue, it's the facts of his parentage at issue which even he, cannot dispute, his mother was white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostsouls (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improvements needed on personal image, unrelated acts during presidential term

WP:FORUM; bring sources, then come back Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As far as his personal image, there are some terms that he brought into widespread use. This is a good addition. Think hard. I can think of some of them. They include shellacking and teachable moment. Neither term was used until Obama used them. There are a few more. There are also some events during his Presidency that are really not part of his biography. These should be trimmed. Anything that he was not a major proponent and waged a major public campaign for is potentially good material. The other stuff is not and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midemer (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC) The Section mentioning the Death of Osama Bin Laden should be edited to just say that he announced the death and not orchestrated or anything to that effect. Our Fine Military killed Osama and not by the order of barrak. If any president deserves this in their Bio its George W. Bush. Since he originally ordered his acquisition. (Sirbiff10 (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC))

Christianity

WP:FORUM. We go by published sources. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Romney was criticized for using the term severely conservative. Nobody uses that term. Some suggest he is a fake conservative and was trying to overcompensate. Likewise, some Obama supporters (but not me) try to go overboard and insist he is Christian because of the previous controversy. However, Christians do not call themselves that except to foreigners who can't speak English. Christians call themselves Catholic or Methodist, etc. Other politician's articles use United Church of Christ in the box. It is also possible that opponents of Obama want Christianity in the box to highlight the un-natural use of the word. Again, why not UCC? Also Obama did not denounce the UCC. He only resigned from being a deacon or a member of the particular congregation. As such, I am fixing the infobox. Midemer (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC) "Christians do not call themselves that except to foreigners who can't speak English." — what??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Ask someone what their religion is? They say "Baptist" or "Catholic". Ask them in a foreign country and they might say "Christian". But I realize there are many anti-Obama people who want to cast doubt on Obama so they use "christian" as his religion, not United Church of Christ. Since there are 120 million people against Obama in the U.S. out of 300 million, you're never going to win that argument even if you are right. Midemer (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC) That all depends on where you are, even within the U.S. Many people say they are "Christian" without giving a specific church. Besides, your opinion or social observations are irrelevant. Go buy what sources say; it says he left that church, so he's not a member anymore. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

real problems with this article just because of inbreeding

WP:FORUM; bring those sources you think exist, then come back Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Inbreeding is when a college department faculty got their degrees from there. After a while, there is no new ideas, just preaching to the choir. I fear this has happened to the Obama article. The same old people say no, no, no, and chase people away. I have read the summary of the article. Some of it is ok but some of it suffers from inbreeding. There are some points which shouldn't be there. For example, McCain is just an old man and an obscure person. Look at President James Madison. He ran against DeWitt Clinton. The President is not defined by the man he ran against. Instead, look at the most important things of Obama. Draw up a list of the 10 most important things and all of those must be included. One of the 10 things is that he is President, is American, and was Senator. I will fix things. Midemer (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Perhaps we should see what others sources say. There is an article about Obama's first year's major Obama events. The problem is that it is only for Obama's first year. It lists 1. order to close Gitmo 2. limiting salary to $500k to bailout banks 3. stimulus package 4. Obama health care 5. Speech to Egyptians 6. Afghanistan troop surge followed by a pull out starting 2 years later. Midemer (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC) How many of these accounts do you have handy? It's unbelievable to me that CU hasn't tracked them all down. Obvious JB50000 sock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DD2K (talk • contribs) 25 February 2012 02:30 (UTC) Ah! I had a hunch... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Tromping over to the talk page to claim "inbreeding" is exactly the opposite of the WP:FIVE pillars that are the foundation of Wikipedia. If you have suggestions to improve the article; please feel free to make them. That is much more constructive - and much more likely to result in improvements to the article - than your recent attempts to make changes without WP:CONSENSUS. (Posting on the talk page and then making a fairly large change shortly thereafter does not constitute consensus.)  Frank  |  talk  03:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC) In addition, the gratuitous assertion of inbreeding is highly unlikely to be viewed as representing collegial editing tendencies.  Frank  |  talk  03:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Favorite Animal

According to Politico, Barack Obama cited that his favorite animal was the egret, a type of white heron. I think that this is an important addition as it may give school children a research topic.

Sources: - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72167.html - In dreams of my father, Obama describes seeing an egret for the first time with his father and he states "[egrets] embody [the] spiritual freedom ... of the formerly subdued" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.186.30 (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Heading: Libya → Ghaddafi

The title Gaddafi is better because intervention ended with Gaddafi's death, and most intervention consisted of targeting Gaddafi. Its also been discussed here. Pass a Method talk 08:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I changed it back to Libya once already and the brief discussion linked above ensued. The section is about US involvement in the 2011 military intervention in Libya, and it is true that Ghaddafi was the leader of Libya. However, changing the title gives undue weight to that fact by implying that the purposes of the military action was to target Ghaddafi. The claim made (on my talk page, linked above) that US military intervention ended with Ghaddafi's death is not stated anywhere in the section. If the implication I refer to, or the claim made on my talk page can be supported by references, that is a different story, although the section is still about overall intervention, not a single person.  Frank  |  talk  13:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've just changed it back to "Libya" as well. The section refers to US activities in Libya in general, in contrast to the section on Bin Laden, for example. Since this has been changed back twice now, I hope it will not be changed again until a consensus has been reached for doing so on this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Character or personality of Obama?

This article is an excellent review of events in the President's life. But I wonder; what is the man like? Some may say this is not encyclopedic content, but peeking at the page of the famously moral Cato the Younger reveals this opening paragraph:

Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95 BC, Rome – April 46 BC, Utica), commonly known as Cato the Younger (Cato Minor) to distinguish him from his great-grandfather (Cato the Elder), was a politician and statesman in the late Roman Republic, and a follower of the Stoic philosophy. A noted orator, he is remembered for his stubbornness and tenacity (especially in his lengthy conflict with Julius Caesar), as well as his immunity to bribes, his moral integrity, and his famous distaste for the ubiquitous corruption of the period.

Since we can include personality and character traits of long-passed historical figures, I vote that we do the same for modern historical figures. TheThomas (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Because they can sue us, we have to be a lot more careful with biographical material on living persons. If a respected and neutral commentator, with some qualifications in assessing personalities, has made a relevant comment about Obama, it may be able to be included, but pure opinion doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks pretty good to fit that bill. Unit for Study of Personalty in Politics. I've read the pages on McCain and Obama, they look neutral and comprehensive. In the page for Ron Paul the authors complained of the time and expense that are spent building these personality profiles, so I trust they are well-supported assertions. Tell me what you think.72.187.98.128 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)TheThomas (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide a number of reliable sources to back the assertion that the president's personality is X, then sure, include it. But, as historians are wont to point out, it is impossible to do objective history like this when the historian lived during the time of the person in question. As such, you're not likely to find that sources agree well enough on Mr. Obama's personality that it would warrant inclusion in the lede. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be easy to find multiple sources saying "Obama is an ambitious man", but I would prefer to find something more potent than a news article stating its opinion of Obama. I think inserting this information in the lead would be overkill. I was not planning to do that. In fact, I would prefer someone else edit this information into the article where they see i as appropriate. This article is beyond my level of writing expertise. This Political Psychology paper mentions many of the same traits as the other I've posted: agreeable, pragmatic, and deliberative. 72.187.98.128 (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Cato the Younger is also unusual in that he's primarily remembered for his personality; and he's far enough in the past that there's a clear historical consensus on what his personality was. There's no such consensus on Obama, nor is his personality a particularly big part of what makes him notable. Looking over our other presidents and other articles on modern political leaders, almost none of them devote time to exploring people's perceptions of their personality -- it's just not an important factor (and there's really not going to be any consensus on the personality of any political figure in this US political climate; I see no real point to covering arguments back-and-forth about something like that.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Brazil

Is part of his family from Brazil ? Please dame la pija (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Please dame la pija (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Obama's father was Kenyan, and his mother was American with mostly English heritage. To a lesser extent, she had Irish, Welsh, and German heritage. No Brazilian connection anywhere. 217.120.178.21 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Private sector payrol employment image POV

This image comes from his campaign website and is a selective snapshot of favourable data which does not represent the expert consensus of the broader community. It should be removed 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please more specific? I'm afraid there is no such section in this article. Phearson (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The OP seems to be referring to File:Private sector jobs dec.jpg in the Economic policy section. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, but there needs to be consensus here to remove this picture. I don't see why we should/should not to remove it. Phearson (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see why it needs to be removed, but maybe reference needs to be made to the original source of data for the graph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.33.138 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree, File:Private sector jobs dec.jpg (1) does not adhere to NPOV because it is from barackobama.com, (2) violates WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE because it presents data impertinent to his tenure, and (3) is misleading because it presents absolute values (i.e., # jobs created/lost) instead of percentages, (4) it presents only private sector statistics, and (5) is a copyright violation since it was not produced by federal government as claimed (created by "Obama for America"). I've replaced it with File:UR BLS Jan09 Jan12.PNG, which assuages these concerns. —Eustress ^talk 01:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I just removed File:Us jobs 200709 201112.jpg, which is the same as the previously problematic image under discussion, only it is not a copy-and-paste from barackobama.com. —Eustress ^talk 05:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The data in the file is different then the first time, it is produced base on the data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is also total employment (not just private), and there is no copyright violations because it is my own work based on federal agency data. Innab (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think absolute values are very meaningful... Can you at least make the graph more compact? It's way too big. Shrink the y-axis a bit. —Eustress ^talk 06:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I made it a little smaller, but on my high resolution screen it would be really hard to read, if it any smaller. Innab (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, what I mean is, can you create a new graph in which the vertical axis is smaller? If you're unsure how to do this, I can give it a shot, but I thought you should have first stab at it. —Eustress ^talk 16:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will do it next week. Innab (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Innab (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Unemployment graph

File:UR BLS Jan09 Jan12.PNG

Someone added this graph to the article – is this appropriate? It seems like a fairly selective bit of data, given the obvious shortcomings of the unemployment figure itself (which only charts benefit recipients, not long-term unemployed), and it goes against WP:SYNTH to imply that Obama is responsible for the unemployment figure. We could just as easily do the DJIA or GDP or number of private- vs. public-sector jobs created, but none of these really tell the whole story. —Designate (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I think the visualization is helpful since employment is mentioned 6 times in the section and the unemployment rate is specifically mentioned in the section 3 times. But perhaps it would be more appropriate on Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Economy? —Eustress ^talk 19:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right that none of these tell the whole story, but on that basis we wouldn't have an article at all, because no single "fact" in it now tells the whole story. And opponents of leaders always rush to talk about unemployment figures and that leader when they're not looking good. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The graph appears to be an accurate synthesis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, it lacks an important feature: any information on what the economy was doing when the Obama administration took office. The reference source data from the LBS goes back to 2002, (trying to paste a link--http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000) and as you can see, the point where the inserted graph starts, January 2009, is the steepest part of the curve. The current graph should be extended one year on the left, to January 2008, which is when the unemployment rate started to skyrocket. The pre-Obama part could be shaded or separated by a vertical line to indicate that it was before his presidency. Without this, the graph gives the reader no way to tell that there was an ongoing economic crisis already in progress at the starting point of the graph. Graphical information jumps out at the reader, so as well as accurate, it must be clear in its implications. This kind of graph generation beyond my skills. Can anyone else do it? Eustress?, did you do the original? CouldOughta (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can make the change but think it's best as is. I feel the image should only portray the UR during Obama's tenure in order to be pertinent to the article (see WP:PERTINENCE), and I believe context is adequately provided for with (1) the link to unemployment rate in the caption (article there has historical UR back to 1990s) and (2) the link to Late-2000s recession in the first paragraph of the section. —Eustress ^talk 20:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very pretty, but is the graph even needed? Biographies of Living Persons are generally meant to be written from an historical perspective, but this graph represents data that has just been published, and it will need to be updated each month as new data comes out. Also, its existence presupposes a direct connection between the unemployment rate and who the President is. Perhaps this sort of thing is best left out of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but, as I mentioned earlier, the section discusses UR a lot. Seems helpful to have a visual aid here. —Eustress ^talk 22:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The chart you removed gave a much clearer picture of the unemployment/jobs issue than the BLS chart. Regardless, I don't believe either are appropriate for this article. Too much explanation is needed. The Presidency of Barack Obama article is much more appropiate, perhaps for both charts/graphs with explanations of the data in the body. Unless there are indicators in the current graph for when the stimulus package started going into effect, and the downtrend prior to the inauguration, it currently depicts nothing notable. Dave Dial (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I would suggest that none of these charts are really notable to the BLP of Barack Obama, but may be fair game for Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Economy (which discusses the matter in some detail) as suggested above. We could go into enough detail on his policies as President to render that article obsolete, but why bother? This article should focus on the overall life of the man and let other articles cover the detailed policies of the president. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 08:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the charts are very relevant to Obama's economic policy impact. The economic charts are also present on Bill Clinton and George W. Bush articles. Innab (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The economic chart on Bill Clinton's page extends back through the presidencies of several earlier presidents, showing the overall trends. The Clinton-only part shows the decrease in the deficit, but without the earlier information, it would be impossible to tell that the decrease was a change from the previous trends. A UR chart that showed this information for Obama's administration would be useful in placing his presidency's economic efforts in context. (CouldOughta, not signed in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.93.64 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Race & categories

This article has been removed from the category "American Christians" and been placed in the "African-American Christians" category. I understand that the former category is the parent of the latter, but the appearance is that Wikipedia believes that Blacks need to be segregated from the other American Christians. I suggest leaving Black Americans, including President Obama, in the American Christians category even though they are also in their own Christian category. Alternatively, merge the African-American Christians category into the American Christians category. SMP0328. (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support merging the categories, but that's an issue for WP:CFD. They could just as easily decide that Category:American Christians should not be diffused, or make some other recommendation. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And as long as they remain separate, there is no need to put someone who is in Category:African-American Christians in American Christians. African-American Christians is a subcat of American Christians (and logically it should always be) so by definition anyone in African-American Christians is in American Christians. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed the merger of the subcategory into its parent. I have also made a broader merger proposal. SMP0328. (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Probable cause" on Obama birth certificate

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11004216-418/arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-unveils-obama-birth-certificate-probe.html

Arpaio on Thursday unveiled preliminary results of an investigation, conducted by members of his volunteer cold-case posse, into the authenticity of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, a controversy that has been widely debunked but which remains alive in the eyes of some conservatives.

At a news conference, Arpaio said the probe revealed that there was probable cause to believe Obama’s long-form birth certificate released by the White House in April is a computer-generated forgery. He also said the selective service card completed by Obama in 1980 in Hawaii also was most likely a forgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.204 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What of it? Editors of this page have repeatedly decided that this WP:FRINGE stuff isn't biographically significant to Obama, but there's an entire article devoted to the subject, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎, and a section there about Arpaio's participation. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, to think Joe Arpaio and his team would know a forgery but the CIA or FBI can't is silly. Common scene.SG²⁰⁹⁰ 19:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is ever proof or widespread coverage, then it should be in the article. Until then, it is a joke. Everyone can see the computer generated form is recent. Nobody says it is 50 years old. But in the 1960's, air travel was rare so Obama couldn't have jetted to Kenya and back. It's just silly. He was born in Hawaii. McCain was born in Panama. Afghandeaths (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Audio link size

The link to President Obama's speech announcing Osama Bin Laden's death seems a bit large. Someone should decrease its size. It's located in the Foreign policy section I would do it, but I don't know how. SMP0328. (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Related article that needs improvement

I came across this article The Road We've Traveled and found blantant vandalism that needed to be reverted. Regardless of how you feel about the film, the article could use some improvement and some monitoring from experienced editors. Remember (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixing the intro

I found this buried in the archives. It is recent so it is really bad that someone is hiding it there. I accuse nobody though, just fixing it, copying it here for discussion and change. Afghandeaths (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Cut-and paste of unhelpful collapsed archive discussion Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 73#real problems with this article just because of inbreeding removed. Please note that there is a sockpuppetry case concerning the above account - Wikidemon (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the ideas of 1. close Gitmo 2. limiting salary to $500k to bailout banks 3. stimulus package 4. Obama health care 5. Speech to Egyptians 6. Afghanistan troop surge followed by a pull out starting 2 years later.

I also add that Obama is against making a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline because it pits his union supporters (for) against his Greenpeace supporters (against). Afghandeaths (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a few details and removed a few unnecessary details from the intro. If you disagree, please discuss it. Don't just remove it. Thank you. Afghandeaths (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

These edits[7] are almost all degradations to the article, and introduce material that has been rejected before as having WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT problems. In some cases they are poorly written or ungrammatical as well. Both these edits[8] are bad - the first removes relevant useful information, the second is unsourced and not immediately relevant to its context (i.e. out of place). This one[9] removes an important biographical and presidential fact. These[10] are not "minor facts" that are being edited out. I'm okay with the removing of the discovery of an early video as biographically important here, [11] so I'll preserve that, but there is no need to repeat the circumstances of his meeting his wife, something that is already mentioned. So one change is reasonable, the rest are rejected as degrading a featured article. I'll also remove the extended cut and paste of an earlier disruptive conversation - linking works better. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden was attacked and killed in May, however the attack was planned in April. The section of the intro should be clarified, because it gives an incorrect statement on his actual death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.metcalfe (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama's descent

Obama is currently categorized as being Irish, Kenyan, Scottish, Swiss, and Welsh. How many of those are correct? SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Category creep again. I think ALL of those categories should be removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Everyone had 16 great-great-grandparents (ignoring some very infrequent collusion), and 32 ancestors in the previous generation. There is no encyclopedic value in listing these as there is no reason to believe the nationality of even one's grandparents has much significance for an article like this. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. SMP0328. (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Notre Dame: Honorary Degree

Alright, was the honorary degree given or taken back? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/us-usa-catholics-contraception-idUSTRE81F12620120216

Twillisjr (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything it that article that even implies that.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as his personal image, there are some terms that he brought into widespread use.

This is a good addition. Think hard. I can think of some of them. They include shellacking and teachable moment. Neither term was used until Obama used them. There are a few more.

There are also some events during his Presidency that are really not part of his biography. These should be trimmed. Anything that he was not a major proponent and waged a major public campaign for is potentially good material. The other stuff is not and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midemer (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Section mentioning the Death of Osama Bin Laden should be edited to just say that he announced the death and not orchestrated or anything to that effect. Our Fine Military killed Osama and not by the order of barrak. If any president deserves this in their Bio its George W. Bush. Since he originally ordered his acquisition. (Sirbiff10 (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC))

This is a good comment. Yet someone censored this and shoved it to the archives. If I was not curious, it would remain there. I am copying it here.

I fully agree that this article has a lot about his presidency unrelated to his biography. Part of it may be political opinion pushers trying to manipulate Wikipedia.

The terms shellacking and teachable moment should be included. Let's think of some other Obama-ism. These are important details of the biography of Obama. Afghandeaths (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you can find reliable sources that say that not only has Obama been the source of a wide-spread increase in the use of the word shellacking and it was a major point of his entire life, then yeah it should be included. Until then, I would argue for non-inclusion. --DeliciousMeatz (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm keen to hear the meaning of shellacking as an Obama-ism. It's a word that's used in Australia to describe one sporting team beating another team by a large amount, perhaps a similar occurrence with political parties. Been around for a very long time. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Barack Obama is our first Mulatto president. 69.124.93.51 (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC) "Mulatto" is largely viewed as a pejorative slur in the United States. The common term is "African-American" used by reliable sources, so that is what we use here. See FAQ #2 above. Tarc (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Use obama is black president. Santhosh k (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Note that the term African American refers primarily to ancestry, rather than race, and is thus clearly applicable to Obama. As noted above, see Q#2 of the FAQ.--JayJasper (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC) ok Santhosh k (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Constitutional Law Professor"

discussed many times -see archives and article text and notes

The source says his title was "Senior Lecturer." Why aren't we using his actual job title instead of some fluffed up title he gave himself? Is it wikipedia policy to simply give people achievements when they declare they have them rather than going by the evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Read the sources again. UC Law twice refers to Obama as a professor. For example: "Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined." This fact is not in dispute. Move along please. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC) The statement by his university says he was "regarded as a professor" (whatever the fuck that means), but that his actual title was "Senior Lecturer." Perhaps you should be the one "moving on." If his real job title wasn't impressive enough then that isn't my problem, but using a deliberately deceptive description, for whatever reason, is clearly inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC) It is clearly inappropriate to you, Qwest user. It's clearly appropriate to the university. The word of the latter has more clout. -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC) From the same source, "several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School..." Apparently the university did consider him a professor, seeing as they say he was one for 12 years. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC) They could call him "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer," but the actual job title they gave him was "Senior Lecturer." Any particular reason why his actual job title isn't being used? Leading people on to believe he has an advanced degree in law is blatantly dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Sure, because for the benefit of readers we are talking about positions, not formal titles. He was not on the tenure track, something that some universities distinguish with specific title descriptions. However, by the account of the university and the sources he was a professor, end of story. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC) By the account of the university he was "regarded as a professor" - not to say he was actually a professor. His formal title was "Senior Lecturer," but wikipedia uses the term Barack himself has used "Constitutional Law Professor." The university did not call him a "Constitutional Law Professor" and so the people who write this article are combining sources to get the result that they want, which should be against the rules. You should either call him "Professor" or "Senior Lecturer" and since "professor" implies advanced academic training, which Barack does not have, that is intentionally misleading. I am not going to lie for his marginal benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC) You do not own this article, so any issues of you lying or otherwise are entirely irrelevant. Nor does working as a professor imply advanced academic training. Go to any college and you will find professors with doctorates, with masters degrees, and with only bachelors degrees. There is a difference between the profession and the title. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) No I do not "own" the article, but if I could look at the histories of some people then I bet I'd see strong evidence that you think you do. I just read the "professor" article on the US, and they show lecturers as being distinct from professors. They also make clear the distinction between capital letter "Professor" and the lower-case informal "professor" and in this case the latter applies to Obama, but the former is the one actually used in the article, which is more evidence of intentional lying to promote Obama. I assume this is because the professor article states that a real professor has more prestige than a mere lecturer. It seems like you aren't actually reading my arguments and your mind was made up before I even posted so I'm not sure why I'm bothering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC) I am employed at a higher education institution and personally, would never address a non-tenured person as "Professor". But this institution apparently did, and reliable sources reflect that, so that is really all that is needed. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Actually, in the US nearly everybody in a teaching position is addressed as professor (says Professor Schulz). They are not usually described as such. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Thank you! That's what I've been trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC) This conversation is an absurd re-tread which has been had several dozen times before - see the archives. What article are you reading? Where do you see "Professor" in upper case as his job title? For quite a long time we have had "professor" in lower case in the infobox as a descriptive term, we say he "taught Constitutional Law" (which I know because I came up with the wording almost four years ago) and we give his title as Senior Lecturer in the text. This non-existent, and still pathetic, controversy is incredibly well-sourced as a sop to the idiotic complaints of anti-Obama trolls, which this is once again. Please, let's move on to the next idiocy. Tvoz/talk 05:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC) This conversation is an absurd re-tread which has been had several dozen times before - see the archives. Offhand, I don't know about "several dozen". But even if not, then certainly "frequently". As it is indeed frequently asked, how about adding it to the FAQ list above? -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Length

This article is massive, with the current version running to over 193 kilobytes. WP:SIZERULE says that a page of 100+ kilobytes "Almost certainly should be divided". Why isn't more material being split out to subarticles? Nyttend backup (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This has come up before. The "readable prose" is only 56k, still getting to be in need of some pruning or spinout, but not dire. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

By my tool, readable prose is only 47k, actually. Given the subject, I think this is still reasonable. Tvoz/talk 05:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe removing some pics or, if that wouldn't be feasible, resizing most of them just a bit could help? Didn't check the article for quite some time (b/c of the size) so I'm just throwing out an idea.TMCk (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Using prozesize.js, the article contains 7802 words. Its comprehensive after all, but other Featured Articles are that long, such as Virus at 8004 words and DNA at 7136 words. Feel free to install the script and check other pages yourself. I think a lot of the page size has to do with all the pictures and captions, and the over 300 citations. Here's the full information: File size: 817 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 99 kB, References (including all HTML code): 20 kB, Wiki text: 194 kB, Prose size (text only): 47 kB (7802 words) "readable prose size", References (text only): 1480 B Jesse V. (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Section on drug use

There should be a section that describes the presidents drug abuse including cocaine marajuana and addiction to nicotine inthe form of cigarretes and drug chewing gum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.218 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to provide information showing that this is indeed factual. If you can find a very reliable source for such a bold and controversial claim, then we'll consider it. Otherwise its slander and speculation. Jesse V. (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

there are some alreadyin the article. Check it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.218 (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the twenty ird source. Also read this http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/12/obama-struggles-smoking-addiction-praises-congress-new-tobacco-regulations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.218 (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Asked if the president still smoked, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama has "a struggle with nicotine addiction" every day.

Obama has a long history of smoking and a photo emerged of him during the campaign trail smoking as far back as college. During the presidential campaign, he chewed nicorette chewing gum in an effort to kick the habit. Gibbs said he "assumed" the president still chewed the nicorette. The president dodged questions at the start of his administration about whether he was still lighting up.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/12/obama-struggles-smoking-addiction-praises-congress-new-tobacco-regulations/#ixzz1qHYJuott" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.218 (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Already in the article. Does not deserve its own section. Personal vices are generally considered of minor biographical importance. Incidentally, Fox News is not a terribly useful source for establishing facts and relevance on its random attacks on the president. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Wikidemon. I was not aware that personal vices are generally considered of minor biographical importance and that it does not deserve its own section. I do not see a problem with using the fox url because it is quoting the Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs. I see one sentence about Obama's drug use, but the above fox source is not in the article. I will add it because the one sentence does not stand alone well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current phrasing within the article? As for the source that you propose to add, one problem with it is that it's from 2009, whereas the article currently cites one from 2011. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with it - per Wikidemon, this is minor stuff - it has been included in the article for years. Nothing more is needed unless the facts change, at which time we would consider if anything in the article should change. Tvoz/talk 07:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There´s also more about drug use in the "Early life..." subarticle. Seems sufficient/reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

According to this essay, this information should be included because "Being a smoker would be relevant to his or her article if that person was otherwise identified with an anti-smoking campaign and denied smoking, or is directly involved in activities with the tobacco industry. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Smokers. From the fox article, "Obama He Praises Congress for New Tobacco Regulations." This qualifies as being directly involved in activities with the tobacco industry. 129.2.129.39 (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And, as has already been pointed out above, it is included. So what's your point? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As I read the current version of this article, it is not clear and may be confusing to readers new to Obama. There is a lone sentence at the end of the personal life section(reprinted below) where I would recommend adding Robert Gibb's quote. Most encyclopedias would try to fit this sentence into a more relevant section and add to it or add to it and keep it as a two or three sentence paragraph.

"Obama tried to quit smoking several times, sometimes using nicotine replacement therapy, and, in early 2010, Michelle Obama said that he had successfully quit smoking.[294][295]"

The fact that Obama quit smoking is included, but it was never established or stated that Obama smoked for any significant period of his life. By providing more context about his smoking habit, the accomplishment of quitting smoking becomes more significant. You may accuse me of giving this undue weight. The essay about smoking linked to above says that the detail of the smoking habit is relevant to the article because as President, Obama is very involved in the tobacco industry-endorsing tobacco restrictions. I do not think I am giving this undue weight. I want to improve the article by making it more clear. Not including all the relevant facts would be disingenuous by only presenting respectable facts about his life. The Wikipedia policy, we are frequently reminded of in pseudoscience articles, is to provide accurate relevant information and let the reader make up their own mind. This way we can make the best article. [Special:Contributions/129.2.65.60|129.2.65.60]] (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, a disagreeable fact is included on the John McCain "Also, if inaugurated in 2009 at age 72 years and 144 days, he would have been the oldest U.S. president upon ascension to the presidency,[215] and the second-oldest president to be inaugurated.[216]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Because no one has responded, does it mean I can add the sentence? Thanks129.2.129.220 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say no, that the editors who have responded to this topic do not feel your suggestion has merit. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any more to say? The editors have not responded to my latest response, so that is not true that they think my suggestion has no merit. I do not feel like you have presented a case against making the article more clear. Please do so. 129.2.64.165 (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is way too much fuss about something of little value to the article. The Fox News article conflates Obama's smoking habit with his support for tobacco industry restrictions. To say that Obama is "very involved" in the tobacco industry defies all conceivable logic. Please take the hint from the other editors here and drop request to include something of no use or value to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is wrong to view this as valuable or not valuable. I am simply improving the article. Am I breaking any rules by asking to improve the article? It seems like you are only including valuable facts about Barack Obama so as to improve his image. This is against the rules. It does not matter that I am a minority. Wikipedia is not a democracy.129.2.64.16 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors here seem to consider this to be a matter of undue weight being given to a minor issue or criticism. As such, adding it would be detrimental to the article not an improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by tarc (talk • contribs)

Please take the hint. There is no breach of the rules by proposing a change that is not accepted. However, accusing people of bias for not deeming your particular proposal worthy is beginning to break a norm, formalized in a rule, of assuming good faith about the intentions of others. Once a conversation gets into that territory it is basically over. If you think that Obama's prior illegal drug use and current nicotine addiction is worth more coverage than the article already has, the way to argue that point is to find a bevy of important sources that say it is a more significant issue in his life, career, or legacy, than is currently portrayed in the article. I don't see that and it is not likely true. Most published sources talking about Obama do not mention this fact. It is part of his life story, but not a dominant one. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for the helpful reply.129.2.64.165 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)