Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 78
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | → | Archive 83 |
Section
should there be a section on his deal with the Russians regarding Syria and chemical weapons? Pass a Method talk 17:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Asylum agus cordes (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Tone/style concern
Skimming through the article, it seemed a little too much like I was reading a series of very densely packed facts with an overly positive tone, not a high-quality Wikipedia/encyclopedic article... It might be a good idea for any editors that work on it regularly to go over it with that in mind when they can. (FWIW, I'm a liberal that voted for him, so this isn't a bias issue on my part.) —Xyzzy☥the☥Avatar 00:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- You shouldn't give the "I'm liberal and voted for him" excuse that is used by either biased side. It makes your post less credible. That said, the article needs some updating for a long time but any attempt is so far blocked right here on the talkpage. Just the usual just as with any other high profile recent politician's article. It will change in a few years so better show patience.TMCk (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Blame Wikipedia for grade inflation. This article is supposed to be the very best of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
"First African American"
| Question relating to this article has been answered. See WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am concerned that this article still states "first African American" president. Clearly, as we all know, Obama is of mixed race. Therefore, this is FACTUALLY inaccurate. It doesn't matter what he identifies as, it matters what the FACTS are. It is very disturbing to think Wikipedia thinks itself unbiased and factual if it allows living people to dictate what an ENCYCLOPEDIA states about them to the point of denying and actively deleting FACTS. I am a mixed race individual myself, and I find it rather unfortunate that this continues. Do other people have the right to state what they are in their wikipedia articles? Does he have the right to edit supposed unbiased information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumacdon (talk • contribs) 03:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I clicked on the username. This person says he or she is "half Hispanic" and presents the idea that "mixed race" is a race in and of itself. Given that text, this person is not very bright. B-Machine (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, being Hispanic does make me biracial, or do you not know that Hispanics can be of numerous races? I suppose you know what race my mother is? This shows your lack of intellect, not mine. I simply want mixed race individuals to be celebrated., not hidden. There are very very few representations in the media or on TV. I am proud of the fact his parents were of different races, I love diversity like that. I would fight just as hard if he was half-Filipino and half-Black. This is not meant to be a discouragement of being African American, quite the opposite. I realize that there is a great deal of racism against Obama, and that infuriates me, but that has nothing to do with what I have stated. Each one of you has acted in hate and not contributed any calm, meaningful, debate on the subject. The word "pure" never left my mouth, nor did I even think that word. You might be surprised to know, or did you actually read my bio, I studied and still study race and ethnicity, easily know as much as you, and am simply fighting for this country to embrace biracial people instead of making everything about racism and politics. NO offense was intended. (Jumacdon (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)) Also, I did read the explanation above, and I understand it must be frustrating to have people beat a dead horse, so to speak. I am sure there are a million Obama haters constantly trying to change the article. I don't agree with the "tertiary" source stuff, that is ridiculous. His birth certificate should suffice in stating he is biracial, that is a PRIMARY source. Needless to say, I still disagree with that part of the article, but it is what it is and I apologize for wasting your time. (Jumacdon (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
In an ideal world, yes, that would be great. NOT the world we live in...besides, once it has been made a big deal about, it is in the public realm of debate. Regardless, is there something wrong with people of different races being together? It sure seems like this society does not embrace it. (Jumacdon (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)) |
Government shutdown
My suggestion for the main article: The United States federal government entered a shutdown on October 1, 2013, suspending services deemed "non-essential" by the Antideficiency Act. (ref. http://reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/usa-fiscal-courts-idUSL1N0HQ2AK20130930 ) During the shutdown, most "non-essential" government employees are furloughed. This results in approximately 800,000 public servants being put on indefinite unpaid leave beginning October 1.(ref. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/politics/federal-agencies-lay-out-contingency-plans-for-possible-shutdown.html?_r=0) The White House estimates that a one-week shutdown could cost the US economy $10 billion.(ref. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/30/heres-how-government-shutdown-hurts-american-people) "A shutdown", President Barack Obama stated, "will have a very real economic impact on real people, right away." (ref. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-sept-30-remarks-on-looming-government-shutdown/2013/09/30/87437ea6-2a10-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html )
As this event is quite important and significant it should be mentioned in the article. 91.83.4.198 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Like many other political or policy events, this should probably go in the "Presidency of..." article, not the main bio. And even that is somewhat questionable since, in theory at least, the shutdown is the result of a dispute between the two houses of Congress, not the Executive Branch (though taking a hard line on that interpretation could probably be called a bit disingenuous). Fat&Happy (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the IP editor's suggested text actually reinforces that perspective. The ONLY mention of Obama in it is him saying "A shutdown will have a very real economic impact on real people, right away." A completely non-surprising and non-controversial statement. This isn't about Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- But it is a notable event during his presidency and will probably deserve a mention in the presidency article, like with Bill Clinton. There´s no rush. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Are we adding something about it to a Republican Party article? HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- John Boehner´s perhaps? Harry Reid´s? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Are we adding something about it to a Republican Party article? HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- But it is a notable event during his presidency and will probably deserve a mention in the presidency article, like with Bill Clinton. There´s no rush. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the IP editor's suggested text actually reinforces that perspective. The ONLY mention of Obama in it is him saying "A shutdown will have a very real economic impact on real people, right away." A completely non-surprising and non-controversial statement. This isn't about Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- It seems likely that if it continues for a while the shutdown will be significant and involve Obama enough to be in the main article here, but it is too early to know. If so, we would want to concentrate on what Obama actually does and how it affects him and his career / legacy, not necessarily what he chooses to say about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Energy policy
Article of president without views of energy in the United States is in my opinion not complete. It will influence the future of mankind. Keystone XL pipeline was actual. [1] I can make the issue more complete with the arguments of the Petroleum exploration in the Arctic. Watti Renew (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't an article about the President, this is an article about Barack Obama. The article about the President is Presidency of Barack Obama. RNealK (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Barack Soetero
Barack Soetero has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Unexpected archive
I'm really wondering why you archived the previous page, why archive 78 is so short. My only guess is that the real reson is the unpleasant topic about the Government shutdown. Please keep wikipedia policy and standard rules, just checked the previous archived talk pages here and every one of them was much longer. Moreover what I have found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page this says that: "The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB or has more than 10 main topics." We were very far from these points, only 1 main topic (about government shutdown), and its size was 4560 bytes, so less than 5 KB (or 9494 bytes if we count the closed topic also, but in this case also we would be still under 10 KB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.204.99 (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- My guess after viewing the history of this page is that threads older than 7 days are archived automatically, as most recently with this automatic edit: [2]. I also guess that this is because this talkpage often have a lot more discussion, so frequent automatic archiving is often helpful. I think archive 78 will still be added to, so it will get bigger. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Reader feedback: I was very dissapointed when...
71.40.207.2 posted this comment on 16 October 2012 (view all feedback).
I was very dissapointed when I looked at the personal information box and realized it didn't say his salary. My friends and I are very curious and want to fix this.
Any thoughts?
Industrialisation (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Compensation
- If you are asking if info about Obama's salary should be included here I would say no since this is an article about Obama himself so his salary would be a trivial inclusion.--174.95.109.219 (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- While salary in some cases is shown in Wikipedia biographies, it seems less personally relevant here. As noted, it is shown on the general President of the United States article. Unlike executive salaries, it is not a subject of negotiation before taking the job or when other offers come along, and it can't even purport to be tied to job performance, since it can't be changed while Obama's in office. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Obama catches pregnant woman
| WP:DNFTT |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Watch and read the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10395183/Barack-Obama-catches-fainting-pregnant-woman-during-Obamacare-speech.html I would say this is significant, historical event. Should be included in the main article, embed the video also! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.138.148 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
Article is self-contradicting
| WP:NOTAFORUM :) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In one section of this article, reference is made to the fact that Mr. Obama publicly supports same-sex marriage. In another section, the article states that he claims to be a devout Christian. This is contradictory. One cannot be a devout Christian and support same sex marriage; devout Christians follow the Bible, and the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin. Please change one of these statements. 173.49.201.12 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Generalisations of a religious bigot countered by generalisations that make no distinction of Old and New Testament. Classy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
Barak Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that does not constitute he is an African American. If this article is using African American to distinguish skin color, then he is black. Referring to him as an African American has no factual base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.83.69 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- You don't have to be born in Africa to be called an African American. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The article's introduction calls Barack Obama "the first African American to hold the office [of President of the United States]. Yet his mother was white, so he is half-African American, often colloquially referred to as "mixed," "mixed-race," or in some places (though many consider the term obsolete for reasons of political correctness) "Mulatto". I propose that the introduction should describe him as the first "half black" or "half African American" president (allegations about Warren G. Harding notwithstanding). 207.7.105.10 (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)NZ
- Issue is addressed in the FAQ at the top of the page, see Q2. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The main point made in the FAQ is that you don't have to have pure African blood to be called an African American. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Individual mandate
Forgive me if this has already been discussed in the archives, but didn't Obama oppose the individual mandate during his presidential campaign, or at least semi-oppose it? This seems highly notable. Perhaps someone with more knowledge and interest in the subject can address it. OckRaz mentioned it in PPACA; I reverted because it seemed out of place, but it would seem to belong somewhere in Barack Obama. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just got a notification that I was mentioned here. FWIW, I don't think Obama's reversal on the individual mandate belongs on the pg for his bio as DrFleischman suggests. However, I did and do think it belongs on the PPACA pg for two reasons: #1) in describing the origin and legislative history of the PPACA, editors have used a great deal of space to make the point that the individual mandate should be considered a Republican concept that Republicans abandoned - which is somewhat misleading (a. because while it had GOP advocates it was never adopted by the party and there were always GOP opponents of it, b. context matters so that offering it as an alternative to a single payer plan is less than an endorsement for opponents of single payer, c. context also matters if you pass a law on the state level to avoid losing a massive infusion of federal money after trying to veto a mandate & d. many consider the 'fine vs penalty vs tax vs deduction vs rebate' question [different kinds of carrots & sticks] to so be important that there's not universal agreement about what qualifies as a mandate), but at this point the nuance free narrative - that the mandate was something the Republican party advocated right up until the moment Obama wanted it - has become folk wisdom & #2) if you're going to devote multiple paragraphs to a diffuse (spread through a collective) reversal that took place over 20 years, you can't just devote one or two lines to a reversal in the opposite direction by the man elected president with this policy change as a priority. That's especially true when that reversal occurred within months and one position was used to attack one's opponents as a candidate and the other adopted after taking office. Were any Republicans elected by voters who thought they were supporting a candidate who would enact an individual mandate, only to reverse their position once in office? Unless one has an agenda, a slow partial reversal within a group opposing a policy can't be more noteworthy than a quick complete reversal on the part of the single individual most responsible for the final policy. OckRaz talk 12:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure that changing one's stance on issues needs to be detailed in a biography, given how common it is in the political realm. The individual mandate was once strongly pushed by Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation, for example. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure it's as common as you suggest, and certainly not on such a notable issue. If I recall correctly the individual mandate was a key distinction between the Obama and HRC platforms in the 2008 primary and was heavily debated, saying nothing of the attention it's received since 2010. Accordingly it's received quite a bit of attention in the reliable sources. A VERY quick search revealed [3], [4], [5] just on the first page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Obama changed his stance on _many_ positions as part of the normal process of finding agreement between the two political parties and invested interests. In the case of the individual mandate, Obama reluctantly consented to this Republican idea in order to get insurance companies to absorb customers with prexisting conditions and lower premiums. This really isn't a big deal, and certainly not biographically significant enough to be in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- The reliable sources disagree with you, no? I'm not saying we need a whole section on this issue, or even a paragraph; just a sentence in the "2008 presidential campaign" paragraph. In fact, this section is somewhat misleading as currently written as it says his campaign "emphasized ... providing universal health care." While I believe he did talk about "universal health care" his position was not only more complex than this but also a subject of considerable controversy and media attention during primary season. I suppose what I'm saying is that we have a small WP:BALANCE problem. We don't have to say that Obama changed his views on the mandate; that would be parroting the talking points of his detractors. I'm talking about a single sentence that accurately summarizes the position he took on the mandate during his campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- This one isn't close, there's no biographical significance even if true. The material, duly sourced and presented as fact rather than an attempt to show a Presidential shortcoming, probably belongs in one or more articles specifically relating to the Affordable Care Act, American health care policy, perhaps the political positions or second administration of Obama, etc. It probably is in those articles already but it may be worth taking a look. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Being flexible and able to make effective compromises is the sign of an effective politician. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, but not relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Being flexible and able to make effective compromises is the sign of an effective politician. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm baffled that consensus is apparently against me. My only explanation, borne out by Wikidemon and HiLo48's comments, is that there's a concerted effort to protect the subject of the article. If this is true, then it's based on an assumption that my proposal is designed as an attack on the subject of the article. That's hardly the case, but whatever. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- In your opening post you made the point that this change in position is "highly notable". If it's simply the sign of being a skilled politician, is it really that notable? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- That seems notable to me, and the issue is notable for other reasons as well. Not least of which is that the president who who championed and signed one of the most significant pieces of legislation in our lifetimes had a change of heart about one of the most noteworthy (and certainly the most controversial) provision in that legislation. And aside from the notability issue, as I explained above the article as currently written is actually misleading, but none of you care about that. Apparently neutrality takes a back seat to "biographical significance." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Did he really have a change of heart, or did he just make the necessary compromise? I don't know the answer. Nor do you. To continue this discussion requires a level of assumption and interpretation we should not be making. If you can find an independent reliable source that makes a declaration on this point, perhaps we can take it further. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Change of heart, compromise, whatever, it doesn't matter. Like I said, I'm not proposing putting in a statement saying anything about a change of heart, so there's no need for a reliable source on that point. I'm not even saying there should be statement saying he changed his position, for which I already provided the three reliable sources above (and I'm sure there are more). I'm simply proposing a statement that he opposed the individual mandate during his 2008 presidential campaign. That's all. This isn't controversial stuff, folks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we're communicating well. Most of the changes in position you're referring to aren't on such notable issues and don't get as much attention in the reliable sources. And for the third time, I'm not suggesting that we allude to any change in position, so yours is a straw man argument. Moreover we have a neutrality issue, which you cannot shoot down on notability grounds. If Obama's position on health care during his 2008 campaign is going to get space in this article then it must be stated accurately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Calling it a neutrality issue, and alleging a "concerted effort to protect the subject of the article", are red flags. If the reason to add this is to tip the scales. If the issue is noteworthy in its own right, of due weight, and relevant to the subject of the article, then it's potentially fair to include it; if not, it's not worthy of inclusion. Whether it comes off as good, bad, or indifferent to Obama does not matter. Here, the proposal is to mention that Obama espoused a campaign position involving a particular feature of health care governance. Overall, I would say the article already pays too much heed to campaign positions, which are mostly relevant to the mechanics of election cycles and getting elected, a step or two removed from actual governance while on the job. That may well be a trace of the article's history, as it was written over time, and that section was probably added before or during the process of the act's passage. The only thing that's obviously pertinent about his campaigning on health care reform is that he made it a campaign issue. That the flavor that ultimately got past both houses of Congress is a different flavor than the one he was espousing during the campaign is a much less significant point. You could say the same about many of his major campaign points, e.g. transparency and accountability, or immigration. Going into that level of detail on the campaigns would overwhelm this bio article with campaign details. If this article is to be changed it's best done by reducing and conforming the campaign description, not adding to it. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm willing to work with you despite your repeated failure to assume good faith. The sentence I'm concerned about is this: "Obama emphasized issues of rapidly ending the Iraq War, increasing energy independence, and providing universal health care,[96] in a campaign that projected themes of 'hope' and 'change.'" This sentence is misleading re health care and thereby violates WP:NPV -- that you do not dispute. I think it could be fixed by adding a single additional sentence. But, you have concerns about the level of detail about the campaigns. So, the middle ground -- which would satisfy both my concerns about neutrality and your concerns about notability -- would be to remove the sentence entirely. (That's certainly not my first choice, but it's better than leaving something in that's factually misleading.) Do we have a deal? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- (Please let go of this "red flag" nonsense -- code for "screw AGF" -- and take my position seriously. If you look through my edit history you'll see I'm not one of the crazies you often see on this talk page.) Obama touted a health plan that he claimed provided universal coverage, but both HRC and Edwards said it wasn't "universal coverage" because he didn't support an individual mandate. Good PolitiFact coverage of the issue here and here. A quote from the first one: "So is it fair for Obama to call his plan 'universal'? Well, not really." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see that this level of analysis of living up to campaign promises or not is relevant or significant enough to merit inclusion in this particular article. Was his campaign more about universal coverage or health care reform? We could always simply call the campaign issue health care reform. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea, and I'm editing the article accordingly. If there are no objections to this then I consider the discussion closed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Did he really have a change of heart, or did he just make the necessary compromise? I don't know the answer. Nor do you. To continue this discussion requires a level of assumption and interpretation we should not be making. If you can find an independent reliable source that makes a declaration on this point, perhaps we can take it further. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- That seems notable to me, and the issue is notable for other reasons as well. Not least of which is that the president who who championed and signed one of the most significant pieces of legislation in our lifetimes had a change of heart about one of the most noteworthy (and certainly the most controversial) provision in that legislation. And aside from the notability issue, as I explained above the article as currently written is actually misleading, but none of you care about that. Apparently neutrality takes a back seat to "biographical significance." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- In your opening post you made the point that this change in position is "highly notable". If it's simply the sign of being a skilled politician, is it really that notable? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Obama and Batkid
Obama saved Gotham city with the help of Batman and Batkid. ref. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PV36IRKD90 and http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-batkid-san-francisco-20131115,0,4450811.story#axzz2kpwPEzrV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.133.133 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently, but I doubt if this will ever become a significant part of Obama's biographical article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- I, agree. If the batkid story gets enough coverage for an article it may make sense to add that Obama was involved there but it certainly does not belong on Obama's biography.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Remarried
Obama Senior is said to have "remarried". The article does not say how often he remarried. He seems to have allegedly remarried about five times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.222.5 (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- This article is about Barack Obama. Detailed information about his father can be found, unsurprisingly, in Barack Obama, Sr. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Much of the promised information is not in the article on Obama Senior. Only three wives are mentioned, Kezia, Ann Dunham and Ruth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.252.226 (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, you should raise this topic on Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.. How many times Barack Obama, Sr. remarried isn't relevant to Barack Obama's life. Acalamari 11:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Much of the promised information is not in the article on Obama Senior. Only three wives are mentioned, Kezia, Ann Dunham and Ruth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.252.226 (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Obama's "Swiss ancestry"
Re [6]: "At the same time, Herren tracked down the 1692 baptism certificate for one Hans Gutknecht – Obama’s seventh-great grandfather on his mother’s side." - I don't think we're including every single country Obama's ancestors were born in. --NeilN talk to me 17:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Though if President Obama mentioned it personally, it might be OK for him to be in that category here...--Somchai Sun (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Stable version?
The box on this page is now nearly ~2 years old. I guess it just means "This is when the article was FA" status, but why it hasn't been updated since I have no idea. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Obama skeet photo staged?
There is currently a Request for Comment at Talk:Browning Citori#RfC: Obama skeet photo staged? The question under discussion is: "The article contains a photo of President Obama firing a shotgun while shooting skeet. Should the caption say that the photo was staged or otherwise faked?" Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I vote we close this new section on the basis that it is stupid. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The RfC has been closed, so we're good to go. Thanks to those who participated. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Benghazi
This article hardly says a lick about the people who died in Benghazi because of him. Someone please expand on this greatly. This is all over the news. There's only one sentence about Obamacare, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.18.176.3 (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Obama is no more responsible for Benghazi than George W Bush was for 9/11, only far-right, unreliable sources disagree.--Somchai Sun (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- And FYI, "Obamacare" is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the Affordable Care Act. So please read the article again, with this in mind. Did you really not know the name of the law? Tvoz/talk 06:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to change Barrack Obamas photo to a more sophisticated one.
ABloodyTruth (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done: if you have one to suggest, and it's free of copyright, please identify it. --Stfg (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Parents' marriage: important info being overlooked
| proposal has not gained consensus; further discussion appears to be unproductive |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article, as it currently stands, overlooks two points about Obama's parents' marriage that are significant and notable: - They were married 6 months before he was born, indicating that the pregnancy was several months along at the time of the event, My effort toward a fix has been repeatedly reverted, with one reason presented being, "Wedlock was a big deal back at the time, sure, but not now in the 21st century". I see this as a mistake. Facts need to be placed into historical context for them to convey full meaning. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states at the time of his birth, and was not made legal until he was about to start 1st grade. This article has no mention of the word "interracial", let alone link to an article on the topic. Both points are significant factors in his parents' relationship, and this article will be improved by adding specific mention of these two facts. As it stands now, both facts can be derived from info that is given (dates and ancestry). But leaving out specific mention creates a vacuum that is akin to having the article not mention that Obama is the first black president, and then justifying such omission by saying something like, "this is the 21st century, and race isn't important". By leaving out these two points, we are failing to give proper context.--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposed edit:
Current edit:
For anyone who doesn't like hearing this from me, you can listen to Barack Obama himself discussing the importance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3nRBwlcE-0&t=11s
Notice also that the year he first gives for his parents' marriage is 1960, when it can be expected that a lawyer with his level of intelligence would be perfectly aware that his parents got married in the same year that he was born in. While it is not our place to delve into the reasons why he did this, it is certainly our job to communicate the straight fact that he was born six months after his parents got married.--Tdadamemd (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
How Obama Made It?: A Layman's Guide, by Young Sop Ahn
A comparison of John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama, by Natascha Drews
The Obama Question: A Progressive Perspective, by Gary Dorrien
Barack Obama in Hawai'i and Indonesia: The Making of a Global President, by Dinesh Sharma
That last one give a reference of Obama himself, and here is that exact quote from the original: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, by Barack Obama
Barack Obama writes a book about his life, and in choosing the title he picks "...A Story of Race...", and you all freak out when I suggest inserting the word interracial as a single adjective to help describe his parents' marriage. There are a wealth of books written about Barack Obama, and the issues I have pointed to are addressed by a wealth of those book authors. Yet people here freak out as though I am making some crazed push into uncharted territory. Ok, let's say that no one here likes to read books. Just take a look at this webpage from Biography.com: http://www.biography.com/people/ann-dunham-434238 The very first sentence is:
There are plenty other references available. I will go out on a limb with an estimate of hundreds. But so long as editors here prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand, there won't be a very bright outlook for an informed consensus on this.--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I am astounded by the level of willful ignorance expressed by the vocal majority here. No biographical significance to Barack Obama? When he tells you in his own words of the significance? When he has written a book of his life and the title itself focuses on the significance? Are any of you bothering to read the quotes provided? Barack Obama himself is telling us that there was fear that his mother was going to be murdered - have her head chopped off - and he would be taken away. Yeah, not much impact on his life there. All of the authors quoted above are writing about Barack Obama's life and they all are communicating the significance. I spent 10 seconds doing a google search, and just presented the first four hits. The question has become, How deeply do we want to bury our heads in the sand here? Take JoeSperrazza's reply, for instance: "I've not yet seen ... references to reliable sources noting the timing of their marriage..." One explanation, Joe, might be that you poked your eyes out before posting that reply. Here's what you are choosing to ignore: From 1st book cited- "at the time of their wedding, Ann Dunham was already three months pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr." If I had the technology, I would post these quotes in Braille, because there appears to be a blatant aversion to so much as a visual scan of the printed word here in this forum amongst those willing to speak up on this. You all are certainly free to continue to ignore everything I've provided, but it is perfectly clear what is important to all of these authors when writing about Barack Obama, and it is perfectly clear to me what belongs in this Wikipedia article. I'll highlight one more quote:
At the time I had written that, I was not aware of the depth that this forum was capable of, but now that has become quite clear. I am not so much disappointed with the editors who have expressed their choice to ignore the wealth of info provided. My deepest disappointment is with the untold numbers of editors who are sitting back and choosing to remain silent on this. The racial aspect of Obama's parents' marriage isn't important enough to mention here? Nelson Mandela's body isn't turning in his grave, because it hasn't even been buried yet.--Tdadamemd (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
New source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7An5LPXjOa4&t=2m40s
The constraints of a news report are often a lot tighter than what Wikipedia editors face, and in this short NBC News report lasting only a few minutes, this point is highlighted not only a single time, but twice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7An5LPXjOa4&t=30s (same video)
The racial aspect of the marriage isn't worth mentioning? To NBC News it was worth mentioning TWICE within the span of two minutes in a single short report - once from Obama's own mouth. This was in 2008, discussing his qualifications to become president, and the importance of his upbringing toward that end.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Another video interviewing Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mX_j89SoSQ&t=3m19s
Two things to note: So clearly ABC News belongs to the same camp as NBC News (report posted above) regarding the importance of this issue, along with the wealth of authors quoted here. And as with NBC, this ABC report also makes multiple mention within the same report as to the importance of Obama's interracial roots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mX_j89SoSQ&t=7m53s (same video)
All of these sources point to a conclusion that we need to make it part of the Wikipedia story that we are choosing to present about him. This particular aspect can be fixed by inserting the single word "interracial". (Ok, y'all can freak out now about how adding these 11 letters will destroy the article.)--Tdadamemd (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Earlier in this section, the text from the biography.com webpage was quoted. Well let's have a look at what their video program presented: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89vsCdn-_0&t=4m27s
That quote was from a program that fills an hour long tv spot. A common rebuttal here has become whether or not such info needs to be edited into a concise summary of Barack Obama. To help gain that perspective, rewind this exact same program to the very beginning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89vsCdn-_0&t=14s
Biography.com lets you scratch their surface where after all of 14 seconds they start into a summary of the interracial nature of Obama's upbringing. That's not 14 seconds into their program even. That's just the intro to their program.--Tdadamemd (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
Tonight I am deciding to take a break from posting about Barack Obama. I will have a look back here after a week has past to see what has developed. Curiously, there are people here who see me to be obsessive. One simple way to prove this to myself is to step back and stay quiet. But the bigger reason for my decision is because of the central position of the WPolicy quote that's been posted tonight - a direct quote from WP:DUE. There is no shortage of people here who appear to be passionate about the view that adding a short and simple mention of these facts would not be an improvement to this article. Yet the wealth of sources posted here (read 'all') support the understanding that the proposal will improve the article. One week seems to be plenty of time for anyone who cares to provide support for such a position to post it here. I will return to see how things develop, and then may take appropriate action in line with Wikipedia policy (or I may return to find that you all have done that yourselves).--Tdadamemd (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC) |
Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2013
date of birth 1095 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.12.234.4 (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cool, my mother was born then. Good year. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. Perfect whether when they started that crusade too. 75.156.68.21 (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Sad week (meta-discussion)
| Close per WP:TPNO "The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This has been a sad week in the Wikipedia community. Here on this page a major argument got cleanly deleted as though the facts it presented had never been posted, and then another person came along and unilaterally declared the active discussion closed, compressing it with an archive tag. But that isn't the sad part. People do messed up things all the time. The sad part is that each and every person who saw what had happened just stood by and didn't do anything about it. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is very sad to see signs of it becoming a fascism. The only tool these active editors are missing is the power to delete change history. Me imagining that all of the bystanders would like to give it to them makes me shudder. Each and every one of you have tacitly cast your votes. Acroterion, your vote was active - demonstrating that you will revert a small vandalism, yet stand by the larger destructive action. So concurrently, there is a small part of me that wants to say thank you, while a much larger part is wondering... "What The Fox?!"
|
Should Obama be part of Wikiproject Socialism?
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 know that "socialism" is equivalent to "communism" in the U.S., but by international standards, any left-leaning politician is a socialist. I've seen that just about every other even nominally liberal politician is part of this wikiproject, so I ask: if Tony Blair (hardly a far-left politician) is part of WikiProject Socialism, then why should Obama be excluded? 78.70.153.159 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because Wikiprojects don't work that way. They aren't categories...--Somchai Sun (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- "...but by international standards, any left-leaning politician is a socialist."{reference needed) I just scanned through the articles of my country's "liberal" leaders. None of them were part of this project nor would I expect them to be as none of them espoused economic policies associated with socialism. --NeilN talk to me 23:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- If the members of that project decide to include him for whatever internal reasons they may have, fine. That's not endorsing or approving, just saying that it's not really our business here what happens over at that particular Wikiproject. Also, not if it affects this article in any way. Any addition that would have the affect of associating Obama with socialism would be unencyclopedic and as such a disservice to readers. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- What makes Obama left-leaning? From the point of view of those of us on the left, he's at best middle of the road. RNealK (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Village pump idea lab: Allowing old discussions to be rehashed on purpose to help include new editors
| Close - not appropriate for this article |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Allowing_old_discussions_to_be_rehashed_on_purpose_to_increase_editor_participation.3F_.28So_newcomers_can_get_a_sense_of_inclusiveness.29 I've looked at an interesting forum post from a user who argued that by not allowing old discussions to be rehashed (I used Barack Obama as an example) (and I think without new evidence would apply here!): "They are bored and unable to pay attention and unable to have the same discussions--which made the people talking a cohesive group--with newcomers so no one feels like they belong." and he argues that's how many Usenet groups declined into being "stale and intolerant" Would anyone mind taking a look? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
|
WP:V and WP:REDFLAG reminder
| User making assertions blocked for abuse of multiple accounts |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Any assertion that someone who has the ability to grant pardons, secretly if need be, is the product of bigamy or statutory rape would need to be sourced to at least one WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed academic legal journal article with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Whether Obama is a "bastard" or not is impossible to source because illegitimacy law was abolished by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, without any provisions for grandfathering, so to speak. If there are no such sources forthcoming in the next few days, I propose that this section be archived as a de facto public political figure character assasination attempt. EllenCT (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Domestic Policy
Should there be an addition to the Domestic Policy section to cover "Civil Liberties" or "Privacy Rights." It seems like the NSA thing is worth mentioning when discussing his presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubintheclub (talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps, in which case you need to take your thoughts to the Talk page of Presidency of Barack Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Issue with the religious views section.
| Closed. See FAQ for details. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In the first sentence it says that Obama is a Christian. We need to change this to "Obama says he is a Christian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:22FF:3CF0:0:0:0:30 (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
|
Obama response to Foreign Policy Issues in mainstream press for over a month about Ukraine and Crimea with no subsection on President Obama's Page.
During the past four to five weeks the emerging news coverage of President Obama's response to the foreign policy issue of tensions in the Ukraine and Crimea have received daily coverage in the mainstream press yet no subsection on this issue is present on the Wikipedia page for President Obama. Two editors have reverted the attempt to present this as a short one paragraph subsection oriented to the Washington Post quotes in an editorial report given over last week-end, both on the President's page here and at the John Kerry page. The issue has been covered daily by NY Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe for the last month and some short version of the president's position and comments would appear to be notable for inclusion. A short though expanded two-paragraph version of the previous version is presented here for comment, since the one-paragraph version described above was not seen as sufficient and Washington Post coverage alone was remarked upon as being insufficient by editors.
- (short new subsection titled 'Ukraine & Crimea' proposed directly after presently existing "bin Laden" subsection);
- On 12 March 2014, USA Today in an article titled "Obama set to meet Ukraine PM as Crimea referendum nears" reported that; "Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk will visit the White House on Wednesday as President Obama searches for a way to head off the crisis in Ukraine that is testing U.S.-Russia relationship. Yatsenyuk's meeting with Obama comes just days before a hastily scheduled referendum in the Crimean region of Ukraine to decide whether the region will become part of Russia," (USA Today, 12 March 2014). Previously the Ukrainian government had become locked in a debate concerning whether the alignment of their country would be more oriented towards the European Union or towards Russia, with President Obama in discussion with leaders of the European Union. USA Today reported that; "Obama has called Sunday's scheduled vote in Crimea 'unconstitutional,' but at the same time the White House has sought to focus attention on the fact that the Russians have a vested interest in what happens in the Ukraine." Putin has argued that if Crimea is viewed as an autonomous state with rights of sovereignty then there is constitutionality, to which USA Today reports that; "The president (Obama) has made that argument twice in phone calls (of unconstitutionality) with Russian President Vladimir Putin since Russia's military incursion into Crimea," (USA Today, 12 March 2014). It was reported that Obama's meeting with Ukraine's Yatsenyuk did not allow Russian reporters to the press conference after Yatsenyuk had put in a request for one billion dollars in foreign aid for the Ukraine from the United States (RTVI, 12 March 2014, transcript of newscast of Yekaterina Andreev.)
- On 2 March 2014, The Washington Post questioned the realism of Kerry's endorsement of President Obama's foreign policy when applied to issues of Russian interventionism in the Ukraine and Crimea during February and March of 2014 stating that, "Kerry displayed this mindset (of President Obama) on ABC's 'This Week' Sunday when he said, of Russia's invasion of neighboring Ukraine, 'It's a 19th century act in the 21st century.'"(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html) The Washington Post essay by its Editorial Board moderated its position of intervention in both the Ukraine and Syria as still requiring realism contrary to Kerry stating that: "But it's also true that, as long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can't pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan -- these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that's harmful to U.S. national security, too."(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html) The same Washington Post article also put into question the more general foreign policy of President Obama which was characterized as "a world in which 'the tide of war is receding' and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces."(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html)
At present two editors seem to support the second paragraph alone (see John Kerry page), while two seem to oppose the second paragraph alone, therefore the first paragraph is added here as clarification of this Presidential foreign policy issue which has been notable in the mainstream press on a daily basis for several weeks. This topic is presently fully absent from the Barack Obama page. This short subsection was expanded with further cites after the request of another editor for more sources. The current Page for the President already covers several open-ended issues at various stages of development both early and late. This short subsection contains notable information in the mainstream press and is useful for inclusion on the Barack Obama page. FelixRosch (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Waaay too early for this article, which is meant to be a summary of Obama's life from an historical perspective. Try Presidency of Barack Obama first. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's a huge hunk of text to deal with just one of the many important international relationships, issues, and flashpoints of the administration: Israel and Palestine, Arab Spring and the many Arab nations, North Korea, Syria, Libya, friendly issues with Canada and Mexico, Russia, China, Japan, etc. As I noted in reverting the proposed addition the way this is worded suffers not only from WP:UNDUE but WP:POV, WP:RS, and WP:OR. The sources are editorials critical of Obama's foreign policy, and happen to touch on the talking points of the moment, and are mostly long quotes from editorials to boot, which isn't exactly the most encyclopedic way to summarize any political issue. Language like "The Washington Post questioned the realism of Kerry's endorsement" is not in the source. How do we know the Post questioned the realism of anything, or "moderated its position" or "put into question" Obama's foreign policy? Only because a Wikipedia editor read the editorials and feels that's what publishers were doing, which is an editor's opinion and not a sourced comment. Further, it wasn't the Post, it was a single writer in a single article published by the Post. The Ukraine situation may well merit a mention here or in the Presidency article, and certainly in sub articles, not only for Ukraine itself but the likely deterioration in US-Russia relations. But it would have to be stated as such in terms of the long term implications, not a critique of the wisdom of Obama's judgement. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama-ism, for those here that may not have seen it, given the odd hyphenation. I stumbled across it by sheer chance today. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Obama's race
| See Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ #2 |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why do you call Barrack Obama II the first "African American" or "Black" President? A person born in America is American. An "African American" describes a person born in Africa who becomes an American citizen. His mother was a "White" American of (partly)European descent. Commonly referred to as "White" or "Caucasian." Obama is of mixed race ancestry. According to the American Heritage College dictionary, a person born of one Black and one White parent is a Mulatto, a rarely used term but more accurate. Respecting Obama's diverse racial heritage is correct and more inclusive. Christosveritaseternum (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Chistosveritaseternum 3/16/14
|
FY 2015 budget request
Hi! On March 4, 2014, Obama submitted his fiscal year 2015 budget request to Congress. I've started an article about it - President Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal. I was hoping other editors would be interested in improving the page and wanted to invite you to do so. I was also hoping to get other editors' input on how to insert a link or two to the article on this page, possibly in the section about economic policy? It could be something simple like:
- President Barack Obama submitted his fiscal year 2015 budget request for $3.9 trillion to Congress on March 4, 2014.[1]
Or longer with more information about what is in the proposal (there is a ton of relevant material that could be used), like:
- President Barack Obama submitted his fiscal year 2015 budget request for $3.9 trillion to Congress on March 4, 2014.[1] The president's budget proposal was described as a "populist wish list."[2] Some of the proposed programs include more spending on pre-school education, tax credits for childless low-income workers, and most than $1 trillion in new and higher taxes.[1] The President's proposal was also considered a "playbook" for Democrats' "election-year themes of creating jobs and narrowing the income gap between rich and poor."[1]
As I said, there is a lot of material - defense spending, taxes, education, etc - that could be included. Does anyone have any comments on what they think this should say or where in the article it should appear? Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Image description
Before someone ends up blocked for WP:3RR... Shouldn't the alt text at least identify Obama by name? --NeilN talk to me 19:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I went to WP:ALT to see exactly what the purpose of it is, but it doesn't seem to be clear on whether it should be written for an audience text-readers or for the blind, or both. So I'm not really sure atm which way this should go. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ditto. Read it and it is unclear, and different from wheat was explained earlier. Dave Dial (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Look at Wikipedia:ALT#Importance_of_context and the Blair/Bush example? --NeilN talk to me 19:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:ALT is not clear, so can we try a little common sense here? Seems right that alt text should physically describe the individual to benefit vision-impaired people, but there's no reason to leave off the person's name, nor does it have to be dumbed down. Why not say something like "Barack Obama, a middle-aged African American male, smiling and standing with his hands folded in front of a desk and two flags. He is a wearing a navy blue suit and a light blue tie with white dots." Tvoz/talk 01:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Look at Wikipedia:ALT#Importance_of_context and the Blair/Bush example? --NeilN talk to me 19:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ditto. Read it and it is unclear, and different from wheat was explained earlier. Dave Dial (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Cultural and political image
Regarding the sentence that says: "According to November 2013 polls, Obama's average approval rating fell to 41%, thus setting a new low for the president." This seems a bit out of place the way it is in this section. Wouldn't it make more sense to put this right after the sentence talking about his poll numbers after his second inauguration? The rest of the section details his image in foreign countries, so the sentence seems kind of wonky the way it is now. Twyfan714 (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting Facts
Barack Obama was born the year of the first freedom ride and was two years old when Martin Luther King gave his I have a dream speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.48.129 (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- So was my mother as they are the same age >3 months apart. Doubt my mother or Obama will remember MLK's speech from that time. Somchai Sun (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also, even if he was old enough to remember the speech it would not be very relevant for an article about Obama as a person.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Tags
The procedure for tagging an article with "pov" or whatever has, IMO, been followed correctly; a user brings a concern to the talk page and tags the section or article as warranted. What's bad is either "drive-by tagging" (no discussion) or "badges of shame" (tags left for months). Neither has happened here, so just discuss above and carry on, pls. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- See the above discussions. The user posted the tags after they were unable to find support for their POV; tagging in this instance could be seen as trying to circumvent the results of those discussions via bringing doubt to the validity of the article. I see that as inappropriate. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe it was followed correctly. The statements by the editor show extreme POV, and when they could not get consensus on the Talk page, they added the tags. That's not really how it's supposed to work. Dave Dial (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well I have no interest in joining the edit-war fray, but it could be seen as this user trying to attract a wider audience into the discussion, which is kindof a purpose of tagging as well. Should this sort of thing ever someday escalate to another Arbcom, just keep in mind that every action made is open to scrutiny. We're all in the public eye here. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Point taken. As it is a BLP, my only interest here is to make sure improvement tagging isn't abused and talkpage discussions are used. I have no opinion on the content of this article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you're certainly right about the scrutiny and ArbCom cautions. I have no interest in edit warring over this either. Although each of the talking points the editor in question has brought up has been discussed Ad nauseam on this, and other, Talk pages. Not as much as the Religion/Birth/Race FAQ pointing discussions, but almost. Dave Dial (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Obama's race.
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.
Obama is bi-racial or mixed race. He is neither from Africa nor is he black or white.
Correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.252.198 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your comment was deleted before with the suggestion you look at the talk pages. We have been over this forever and a day. Please look through the archives too see what has been discussed and why obama his race is listed as it is. If you then still have a suggestion, then make a suggestion backed by some reliable sources. NathanWubs (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Legacy of first term / Evaluations of first term
In the previous thread, there was a proposal agreed upon by at least two people to remove this section entirely, on the grounds that it consists entirely of cherry-picked polls, and polls are difficult to represent fairly in a WP:NPOV way. Do we have consensus on this proposal? TBSchemer (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- No. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why not? I thought you were the one who initially argued that polls probably shouldn't be in the article? TBSchemer (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why not? Because I'm sick of your shallow, POV ridden misrepresentation of sources, and now me. I said "I'd be happy to see most of that polling stuff gone." You now say that I've agreed with you to remove this section entirely. There is a significant difference. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why not? I thought you were the one who initially argued that polls probably shouldn't be in the article? TBSchemer (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I will welcome input from other editors on how to make this section WP:NPOV. Simply, please refrain from WP:PERSONAL attacks. Don't throw around accusations of racism. TBSchemer (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- These are my thoughts:
- Perhaps the section itself should be deleted as Wikipedia:Too soon? I recognize that essay (not even a guideline) refers to articles as a whole, but I think it could apply to this section.
- It seems very difficult, without the benefit of more time and reliable work by historians, to judge the 1st term of a sitting president without having to present contrasting views. I'm sure reliable sources could be found to juxtapose the points presented in that section. Is that really what we want in this article? I.e., one subsection with reliably sourced positive statements, and another with reliably sourced negative assessments?
- Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yea, I think that section could probably just be removed for now. Wait for a more historical look and add detail then. Perhaps there is another article that can be added to now, but I don't really care enough to look around. Besides, it was just added a few days ago, without discussion. Dave Dial (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- It does seem both premature to talk of the legacy, and also stale to cover the first term in isolation. The polls there are weak, Presidential legacies are usually not determined by vote. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a bit anachronistic to record the legacy of a president who remains in office. I would be fine with removing it. On the other hand, since the intention of that section seems to have been to list several opinion polls, would it be worth trying to convert that section into a general "Public Response" section? Perhaps, this section could cite sources that describe how various policies and events in Obama's presidency affected his polling among various groups. TBSchemer (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest deletion. Not only is doing so easiest, but, from a practical perspective, your proposal would involve a lot of drama with low results. As I noted in my initial comment, if I understand your proposal, we'd end up with a two-subsection section, one with "Public Response - Negative" and the other with "Public Response - Positive". This answer seems as premature as what's there now, as well as not encyclopedic. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a bit anachronistic to record the legacy of a president who remains in office. I would be fine with removing it. On the other hand, since the intention of that section seems to have been to list several opinion polls, would it be worth trying to convert that section into a general "Public Response" section? Perhaps, this section could cite sources that describe how various policies and events in Obama's presidency affected his polling among various groups. TBSchemer (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- It does seem both premature to talk of the legacy, and also stale to cover the first term in isolation. The polls there are weak, Presidential legacies are usually not determined by vote. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yea, I think that section could probably just be removed for now. Wait for a more historical look and add detail then. Perhaps there is another article that can be added to now, but I don't really care enough to look around. Besides, it was just added a few days ago, without discussion. Dave Dial (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems like the consensus position is to remove this section. I have made the change. TBSchemer (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm certainly OK with the change. I would have done so myself, but was going to wait a little longer. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Much too soon to delete this section on the basis of one user's consent. There are at least 5-6 editors who emphatically disagree with you concerning this section in the four (4) sections above. Nor have you answered one of the basic issues which is If all of the presidents who have completed at least one full term of Presidency all have a Legacy subsection, then why are you singling out Barack Obama and excluding him from having one? FelixRosch (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- The change was made after 4 editors expressed agreement, and nobody had yet put forward any reasons to disagree. I don't think George W. Bush had a "Legacy" section while he was still in office. Still, if we do include a legacy section for the Barack Obama article, it needs to include more than just favorable reviews from a limited set of academics. For instance, the polls demonstrating that Barack Obama is the most polarizing and divisive president in US history, as well as his job approval ratings are crucial for the sake of accurately and neutrally framing Barack Obama's place in history. As it stands right now, this section represents a very biased POV. TBSchemer (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- The section seems neutral enough to me, however in this case a discussion over its neutrality would be prudent as the section is new. As per George W. Bush, he did have a similar section under the subheading of "Public Views and Perception", as can be found in diffs including this one from September 2008 (and earlier). It is not an indexed subtitle so you'll have to scroll down to it. So there is precedent. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- TBSchemer - I have a hypothetical for you to think about. If someone who hated Democrats and hated black people, and was obsessed with proving Obama was a really bad man, and who could write in a manipulative manner, came here and wanted to get some negative stuff in the Obama article, it's likely that they would write a lot of similar stuff to what you have written. That would mean that those whose goal is truly NPOV would immediately become suspicious. Now, I will assume good faith and say I don't think you are such a person, but can you see how your posts are beginning to look? HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- HiLo48, do you believe that a neutral article about a human subject necessarily has absolutely zero negative stuff in it? It's just all positive stuff? Is that what you're claiming is neutral? TBSchemer (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Try to think about this from the perspective of someone who comes to this article looking to learn about Barack Obama. With the article as it is now, are they going to learn why 40% of the country admires him? Probably. Are they going to learn why 55% of the country hates him? Not at all. From this article, they probably wouldn't even realize that anyone disapproves of his policies, let alone a solid majority. That is a clear sign of an article with serious WP:POV problems. TBSchemer (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what I said. Please reread what I wrote. TBSchemer (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're trying to create a false balance. In fact, what you're doing is exactly the same as what Fox News does, when it claims to be "fair and balanced". In a hypothetical situation where 50% approve and 50% disapprove of an article subject, you would try to make sure 50% of that article is positive and 50% is negative. Such a false balance completely ignores why people approve or disapprove, and it also ignores the context of that approval/disapproval. That is why we let reliable sources guide us as to what level of weight should be applied, and not stupid polls. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Gallup is a reliable source, cited elsewhere in the article on Barack Obama, as well as in the articles on every previous US president. Please address these facts rather than repeatedly leveling personal attacks against me. TBSchemer (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am not personally attacking you. I am rebutting your arguments. If you see rebuttal as a personal attack, that is your problem. Gallup is a source of POLLS, not a source of CONTEXT. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Falsely attributing motives to me is a personal attack. Please restrict your discussion to the article content, and avoid addressing anything you think you know about me, about my beliefs, about my philosophy, or about my motivations. I linked to Gallup's press release which discusses context. I also provided a Washington Post article that discusses the same data in context. Do you dispute that these are reliable sources? TBSchemer (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am not personally attacking you. I am rebutting your arguments. If you see rebuttal as a personal attack, that is your problem. Gallup is a source of POLLS, not a source of CONTEXT. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Gallup is a reliable source, cited elsewhere in the article on Barack Obama, as well as in the articles on every previous US president. Please address these facts rather than repeatedly leveling personal attacks against me. TBSchemer (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're trying to create a false balance. In fact, what you're doing is exactly the same as what Fox News does, when it claims to be "fair and balanced". In a hypothetical situation where 50% approve and 50% disapprove of an article subject, you would try to make sure 50% of that article is positive and 50% is negative. Such a false balance completely ignores why people approve or disapprove, and it also ignores the context of that approval/disapproval. That is why we let reliable sources guide us as to what level of weight should be applied, and not stupid polls. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what I said. Please reread what I wrote. TBSchemer (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Without getting into the apropriateness of having polls, or which poll should be used, I just want to explain that I changed the section heading because to me it seems like a bit of an exaggeration to use the word "legacy" for describing opinion polls about a president who is still in office. A "legacy" implies a lasting and significant consequence of something, not simply popularity. There is an unfortunate tendency to overuse the word "legacy" in wikipedia, but I found this usage to be particularly egregious. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree, that seemed a bit much. As I have had a comment on my Talk page about this discussion, I want to reiterate that I think the section should be removed, or maybe moved over to the presidency article. If moved, I don't think it deserves it's own section right now, as BHO is still in office. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- While it doesn't matter to me if the section is kept or not, while it is here it should be accurate. I have adjusted the part about polarization to match the actual facts in the Washington Post article, which clearly indicates that President Bush was more polarizing in the fourth year of his first term. Also, the article gives the numbers context, as regards the overall polarizing political environment in the US--not just in the public's views on the White House. If the polarization numbers are there, they should be neutral and contextual. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your constructive edit. I think your correction helps give a more complete historical picture. TBSchemer (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- You should have just removed it. In essence, you are rewarding TBSchemer for refusing consensus and inserting the biased, out of context, section he has attempted to insert before. One should not reward editors who edit war, especially when they are edit warring against such obvious consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I won't revert you if you choose to remove it, and similarly have no interest in trying determine whose POV is neutral or non-neutral here. The best way of moving forward at this point may be an RFC on the subsection in general so the efforts of all editors involved is less scattered and more formal. That said, an RFC could occur with the polling material removed from the text beforehand (and likely should given the balance of feelings on this talkpage) or with them still there; and I am not claiming an RFC is necessary given that balance of feelings that the additions are likely not appropriate. It just may be easier that way. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will revert and I a propose that an RFC is indeed started, to have an actual consensus. NathanWubs (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Dave Dial, there have not been any reasons put forward on this talk page to selectively exclude the information I have included through my edit. I would not object to deletion of the entire "Evaluations of First Term" section, though another user has denied consensus on that solution, reverting the deletion. By all means, please continue to discuss whether the "Evaluations" section belongs in this article at all. But until consensus has been obtained for that proposal, I do think the recent edits to the section have improved its neutrality. Regarding these edits, no editor has yet put forward a reason why the Gallup polls do not belong in that section. The entirety of the discussion over those edits has been a series of personal attacks against me, without any discussion of the content. If you have a (non-personal) reason why this content should be excluded while the other polls of academics should remain, please describe your objection. TBSchemer (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- You don't get to override consensus because you don't like the reasons given. The fact is, your comments here and your attempts to add "balance" to a section are all too familiar. Trying to add extreme claims like Obama is "the most polarizing president in US History" over and over and over is getting very old. Anyone can look at the sources cited and know right away the claim is false. It states right in those sources it isn't true. Add that to the fact that the polls only go to 1952, it's absurd to try and add that to the article. And then making the claim of "Orwellian cleansing", while making outrageous claims here, along with "55% of Americans hate Obama", "Obama is a Totalitarian racist that is using executive powers to mislead the country", and you want other editors to believe you are here to improve the article? No, your comments have forced me to ignore you. That is a Talk page choice for long time editors. To ignore obvious POV editors that want to disrupt Wikipedia with their outrageous claims. So do not take people ignoring you as proof of anything other than they are tired of your antics. Dave Dial (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for (finally) addressing the content. I think you make good points about the "polarizing" polls. You've convinced me that those probably shouldn't be in the article (see? that wasn't so hard). What do you think of the idea of including the average job approval number across his first term?
- You should know that I do not seek to disrupt Wikipedia. Claims that seem outrageous in your social circles are common knowledge in others. When I first came to this page, I found the (selective) lack of information here outrageous. To me, it looks like POV warriors have already had their way with this page, and the vast majority of them are trying to protect Obama's reputation from the facts. But that's what discussion is for- to find a neutral solution. Ignoring discussions while you continue to revert only causes a bigger disruption. I'm happy that you finally explained your concerns, and we had the opportunity to come to more of an understanding. TBSchemer (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- You don't get to override consensus because you don't like the reasons given. The fact is, your comments here and your attempts to add "balance" to a section are all too familiar. Trying to add extreme claims like Obama is "the most polarizing president in US History" over and over and over is getting very old. Anyone can look at the sources cited and know right away the claim is false. It states right in those sources it isn't true. Add that to the fact that the polls only go to 1952, it's absurd to try and add that to the article. And then making the claim of "Orwellian cleansing", while making outrageous claims here, along with "55% of Americans hate Obama", "Obama is a Totalitarian racist that is using executive powers to mislead the country", and you want other editors to believe you are here to improve the article? No, your comments have forced me to ignore you. That is a Talk page choice for long time editors. To ignore obvious POV editors that want to disrupt Wikipedia with their outrageous claims. So do not take people ignoring you as proof of anything other than they are tired of your antics. Dave Dial (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Dave Dial, there have not been any reasons put forward on this talk page to selectively exclude the information I have included through my edit. I would not object to deletion of the entire "Evaluations of First Term" section, though another user has denied consensus on that solution, reverting the deletion. By all means, please continue to discuss whether the "Evaluations" section belongs in this article at all. But until consensus has been obtained for that proposal, I do think the recent edits to the section have improved its neutrality. Regarding these edits, no editor has yet put forward a reason why the Gallup polls do not belong in that section. The entirety of the discussion over those edits has been a series of personal attacks against me, without any discussion of the content. If you have a (non-personal) reason why this content should be excluded while the other polls of academics should remain, please describe your objection. TBSchemer (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will revert and I a propose that an RFC is indeed started, to have an actual consensus. NathanWubs (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I won't revert you if you choose to remove it, and similarly have no interest in trying determine whose POV is neutral or non-neutral here. The best way of moving forward at this point may be an RFC on the subsection in general so the efforts of all editors involved is less scattered and more formal. That said, an RFC could occur with the polling material removed from the text beforehand (and likely should given the balance of feelings on this talkpage) or with them still there; and I am not claiming an RFC is necessary given that balance of feelings that the additions are likely not appropriate. It just may be easier that way. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts:
- The section is not well written. In addition, per my prior comments, it is best deleted.
- In terms of either Policy or Content, I don't see anything substantively better or worse about the text added by TBSchemer than the the text already there. I think it should be restored by whoever last deleted it so we can have a base version to discuss. I will not be reverting it myself.
- I did not agree with TBSchemer's removal of the section after just a few days discussion per WP:DEADLINE, but I did agree with the removal per my prior comments.
- I urge editors to stop WP:EW and discuss and wait for consensus. If that takes an RFC, so be it. But two wrongs (albeit minor) don't make a right. That TBS deleted the section a little early did not necessitate instant reversion and Sturm und drang. It could have been discussed as is, and when WP:CONSENSUS met, the section restored (if so decided) or left alone. Similarly, there's no reason to revert his latest addition in a big hurry vice just discussing it.
- Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:DEADLINE/WP:CONSENSUS I reverted once, and I have certainly not been "edit-warring" or causing any other trouble on this article. If the editors who have been involved in a slow-moving edit war over this continue, the page will be fully protected. We don't want that. I should say that I'm not a fan of the section either, but believe a re-write would be better than a total deletion. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are right maybe my revert was a bit prematurely. It could have happened after an RFC. However I reverted in good faith. There has been no consensus reached by TBSchemer he just assumed that silence is consensus to his edits. Its not. The silence from most editors after refuting his claims several times over has a reason. For me its the pov pushing and the mis-interperation of sources even after they have been explained. This speed revert is also because Tbschemer has done this before deleting the section without consensus, which is nicely put by Hilo at the beginning of the this discussion. Also I was not planning to WP:EW if my revert was reverted I would not go ahead and revert it again. I will let it rest until a RFC is started. If not then I will just move on till there might be something else noteworthy discussed on this page. NathanWubs (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Whether the section is kept or gutted / deleted (which I favor), the business about being the second most polarizing President is POV, unencyclopedic, and on the face of it, pretty absurd. If this only goes back 50-60 years you can't claim that it's an absolute rank, and there have only been about 10 presidents in the period. Being the second top out of ten of anything is just not a useful factoid. The claim that people claiming allegiance to each of the two major parties are split disproportionately about a thing makes that thing "polarizing" is just bad logic, and quoting pundits on the meaning of polls is pretty useless in terms of getting anything meaningful out of it. It's probably true that this reflects that the parties are more partisan than ever before, but being partisan about a thing and the thing being polarizing are two different things. First, there's the matter of cause and effect. Second, just because two parties are both fighting over something doesn't actually mean that they are "polarized", meaning that they have a different, opposing and incompatible worldview. The Dodgers fans may hate the Yankees fans and the Yankees fans may hate the Dodgers fans, but there's no polarization, they're both baseball fans. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Photo
Greetings from Spain!!!. Could anyone put in Wiki Commons photo of President Obama with the Prime Minister of my country, Mariano Rajoy? Thank you. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/january-2014-photo-day --Campeones 2008 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The 44th and current President or president of the United States
I changed "President" to "president" in the opening sentence "Barack Hussein Obama II (/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ⓘ; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current president of the United States, and the first African American to hold the office." My edit summary mentioned the WP:JOBTITLES example of "...sworn in as the 38th president of the United States..." The change was reverted, capitalizing President, with the edit summary: "That is a reference to Obama being the current occupant of the office of President of the United States."
While the second part of the sentence ("the first African American to hold the office") refers to the office, the first part refers to the job, as evidenced by the adjectives "44th and current". There has only been one office of the President of the United States, which is capitalized, while there have been many presidents of the United States, including the 44th and current one, President Obama. (Just to be clear, I mean political office, not a physical office). WP:JOBTITLES, part of MOS:CAPS, gives the similar usage of "the 38th president of the United States". It's also in keeping with the style of major US newspapers (e.g., NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, Washington Post). It's a bit confusing, because it varies on usage: "Barrack Obama is the president of the United States", "Barrack Obama holds the office of President of the United States", "She introduced President of the United States Barrack Obama". I'd suggest using lower case, in keeping with MOS:CAPS guidelines.
Agyle (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- This one gives me a headache, to tell the truth, and I see no real difference between the two. I think the point was that the link is to the article President of the United States in which case the initial cap makes sense to me. But I will let other MOS denizens argue over this. Tvoz/talk 00:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- SMP0328, I agree context matters, but the sentence does not say "44th and current occupant of the office of the President of the United States." If it did, I'd agree that it should be capitalized. It says "the 44th and current President of the United States," referring to his job rather than the office, and should not be capitalized. Citing other Wikipedia articles isn't convincing. I asked for clarification at MOS:CAPS#President of the United States, and there hasn't been much reply, but I posted this summary of newspaper usage of "the 44th [p or P]resident of the United States" there:
Newspaper Lowercase/
UppercaseNew York Times 9 lc, 0 UC Los Angeles Times 10 lc, 0 UC USA Today 10 lc, 0 UC Washington Post 2 lc, 0 UC Wallstreet Journal 8 lc, 0 UC Chicago Tribune 10 lc, 0 UC Toronto Star (Can.) 7 lc, 3 UC Guardian (UK) 9 lc, 0 UC Daily Telegraph (UK) 3 lc, 7 UC Herald Sun (Aus.) 4 lc, 6 UC Times of India (India) 7 lc, 1 UC Irish Independent (R. of I.) 3 lc, 7 UC
- Tvoz, the article President of the United States is capitalized for two reasons: (1) the first word would be capitalized anyway, and (2) it's referring to the office, not to a person. If you can replace "president of the United States" with the phrase "the office of the President of the United States" in a sentence, and it makes sense and sounds like what was intended, then you should capitalize President. If you're talking about a person, like Obama, it's almost always uncapitalized by mainstream media in American English. An exception is when it's used as part of the name, like "President of the United States Barrack Obama said..."
- ––Agyle (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've changed the Introduction so it now refers to Barack Obama as being the "44th and current holder of the office of President of the United States." Now the capitalization is unquestionably correct. SMP0328. (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that good faith effort - but now the problem is the phrases "holder of the office" and "to hold the office" are both in the same sentence, which is really not great writing. I'd prefer it going back to how it was and I don't care if it's capitalized or not. This always has seemed too insignificant to be worth the time thinking about it. Hence my headache. I do, however, care about repeating a phrase this way, especially in the lead. I also find the distinction between the office and the job particularly obscure. Tvoz/talk 00:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this rule is hypertechnical, but The Chicago Manual of Style is treated as gospel here. I have separated the end of the Introduction's first sentence (referring to Obama being the first African American President). This alleviates the repeated phrase issue. SMP0328. (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- No other article about a politician describes them as the "current holder of the office", whether they are a governor, Senator, leader of another country, etc. I don't see the point as to why "Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States" isn't sufficient enough to describe his current position.--Joker123192 (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Read this thread. Agyle claims that Obama should be referred to as "president of the United States", because the opening sentence refers to his job rather than to the office. My edit, which I have restored, makes the sentence refer to the office, so that Agyle will not have a problem with the capitalization of "President". SMP0328. (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've gotten over my headache on this and reverted back to the original capitalized President of the United States which has been in place for years on this article. Look at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush for starters - ample precedent for capitalizing President in this context with the link to President of the United States. Adding in the "holder of the office of" may be well intentioned, but it is awkward and wordy and utterly unnecessary. I understand Agyle's point, but I think it is ill advised and really nitpicking. The far worse sin is to push in the extra words and then repeat them, whether in one sentence or two, just for the sake of the P. As for the Chicago Manual of Style's preference, all I can say is nothing is "treated as gospel here", certainly not any particular style manual. Let's try some common sense, and the precedent of a long history of this Featured Article and articles about others and stop this exercise. Leave this as it has been for years for now, and see what others think. I'll review some more articles in the meanwhile, which has much more relevance than what outside sources do according to their own style manuals. And again, the office, the job, and the man are - in this sentence - one and the same, so this is needless sophistry. He is the 44th and current President of the United States. Tvoz/talk 06:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to have the Introduction be as it was before this discussion started. The supposed office/job distinction is very nitpicky. What matters is that the Introduction continues to refer to "President of the United States" and not "president of the United States". SMP0328. (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've gotten over my headache on this and reverted back to the original capitalized President of the United States which has been in place for years on this article. Look at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush for starters - ample precedent for capitalizing President in this context with the link to President of the United States. Adding in the "holder of the office of" may be well intentioned, but it is awkward and wordy and utterly unnecessary. I understand Agyle's point, but I think it is ill advised and really nitpicking. The far worse sin is to push in the extra words and then repeat them, whether in one sentence or two, just for the sake of the P. As for the Chicago Manual of Style's preference, all I can say is nothing is "treated as gospel here", certainly not any particular style manual. Let's try some common sense, and the precedent of a long history of this Featured Article and articles about others and stop this exercise. Leave this as it has been for years for now, and see what others think. I'll review some more articles in the meanwhile, which has much more relevance than what outside sources do according to their own style manuals. And again, the office, the job, and the man are - in this sentence - one and the same, so this is needless sophistry. He is the 44th and current President of the United States. Tvoz/talk 06:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Read this thread. Agyle claims that Obama should be referred to as "president of the United States", because the opening sentence refers to his job rather than to the office. My edit, which I have restored, makes the sentence refer to the office, so that Agyle will not have a problem with the capitalization of "President". SMP0328. (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- No other article about a politician describes them as the "current holder of the office", whether they are a governor, Senator, leader of another country, etc. I don't see the point as to why "Barack Hussein Obama II is the 44th and current President of the United States" isn't sufficient enough to describe his current position.--Joker123192 (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this rule is hypertechnical, but The Chicago Manual of Style is treated as gospel here. I have separated the end of the Introduction's first sentence (referring to Obama being the first African American President). This alleviates the repeated phrase issue. SMP0328. (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that good faith effort - but now the problem is the phrases "holder of the office" and "to hold the office" are both in the same sentence, which is really not great writing. I'd prefer it going back to how it was and I don't care if it's capitalized or not. This always has seemed too insignificant to be worth the time thinking about it. Hence my headache. I do, however, care about repeating a phrase this way, especially in the lead. I also find the distinction between the office and the job particularly obscure. Tvoz/talk 00:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've changed the Introduction so it now refers to Barack Obama as being the "44th and current holder of the office of President of the United States." Now the capitalization is unquestionably correct. SMP0328. (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- ––Agyle (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2014
| This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May I edit the page because the Thai Wikipedia says it's a featured article. 68.5.244.183 (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. This article is semi-protected, maning that if you create an account and use it for at least 4 days and make 10 edits in other article, then you can edit this page. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Edit request
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the link Chicago-style politics to the "See also" section at the end of the article, due to Obama being involved in Chicago politics and the apt comparison of him to the style. --166.205.68.28 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Source http://www.nationalreview.com/article/349610/obamas-chicago-way-john-fund --166.205.68.28 (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Oversized image
In the University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney subsection there is an image that is too big. The image partially overlaps with the subsection's title. The source code for the image is not within the subsection. The image should be decreased in size or moved. SMP0328. (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Decline
I got rid of this addition because of the use of weasel words ("many"). I'm not saying the addition is unwanted, but it would certainly need to be rewritten and discussed on this talk page before being added back. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- AFAIK every modern president has been blamed for the decline of America. Overall, the country is clearly in stronger shape now than when Obama took office, whether you want to blame that on the president or not. The partisan claim that America's unwillingness to project military power in Ukraine is a sign of presidential weakness is pretty farfetched. It looks like the denigration of the day. Next week there will be some other talking point / meme about what's wrong with Obama. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- A few opinion pieces from newspapers doesn't make compelling or interesting content. Indeed, Obama "Controversies" from the right wingers are fickle and go in and out of season on a regular basis (i.e like the *cough* "Benghazi thing" *cough). Somchai Sun (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
"New Party"
Hi. Obama's former membership of the New Party is a fact confirmed by primary evidence that is acknowledged by two reputable conservative sources (The American Spectator and National Review), a reputable moderate source who is often labeled a liberal (Ben Smith at BuzzFeed), and a reputable libertarian source (Reason).
I would like to know what your disagreement actually is. Accusing someone of using a 'talking point' is itself a talking point, ironically.
Is your disagreement based on:
1. a belief that none of those sources is reputable? 2. a belief that the claim isn't true? 3. a belief that the information isn't important enough for Wikipedia?
If point 1, then I point out that all four of those sources are used by a wide range of Wikipedia articles without any controversy. They are widely regarded as legitimate sources of information by the users of Wikipedia and by the rest of the media.
If point 2, then I ask, why do you think so, considering that two reputable conservative sources, one reputable liberal/moderate source, and one reputable libertarian source think otherwise? Only two of those sources can be considered 'right-wing'.
If point 3, I point out that many Wikipedia articles on politicians contain information about previous memberships of political parties. Examples include Ronald Reagan and John Reid. In fact, even Wikipedia articles on non-politicians often contain such information, for example Christopher Hitchens.
Renren8123 (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please look in the archives for this page - the subject has been raised and rejected before, several times. Even one of your own sources, Ben Smith, quotes the founder of the party as saying they didn't have members - putting this in the infobox suggests otherwise. The most that might be accurate is that he once received their endorsement, for his State Senate run, which is trivial regarding his whole life, and a world apart from this being his "former" political party. And we don't generally list campaign endorsements, certainly not in the main bio article. I'm sorry if you don't like my characterization of this as a right-wing talking point - I'll be glad to amend that to "fringe talking point". You've managed to resurrect old sources that talk about Acorn, Bill Ayers, and a newer, astounding piece in reason.com that compares Bill de Blasio and Obama including such bon mots as "Both Obama and de Blasio are married to black women they met at work." I'm surprised Benghazi isn't
and Obamacare aren'tmentioned. No, this New Party nonsense is neither accurate nor appropriate for this article. Tvoz/talk 03:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- The topic is this edit which added "New Party (formerly)" to the infobox (with four references to hammer the point in—spectator.org nationalreview.com buzzfeed.com reason.com). There are hundreds of crackpot ideas ("buzz") about Obama, and there would need to be a good reason to add this as a plain fact. What secondary source has written an analysis of these claims and their significance? Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tvoz: “Even one of your own sources, Ben Smith, quotes the founder of the party as saying they didn't have members - putting this in the infobox suggests otherwise.” Read the last update in the Smith article: “UPDATE: Richmond sends over a New Party page from 1997 that makes pretty clear that they saw themselves at the time as having members: The New Party is run by dues-paying members, who are organized into chapters. The national organization provides support for chapter growth and coordination. Every member gets one vote.”
In Smith’s own words, it’s now “pretty clear” that they did have members.
“The most that might be accurate is that he once received their endorsement, for his State Senate run, which is trivial regarding his whole life, and a world apart from this being his "former" political party.” Why are you personally judging what might be accurate?
“I'll be glad to amend that to "fringe talking point"”. You didn’t catch my point that calling something a ‘talking point’ is itself a talking point. And in what universe are The American Spectator, National Review, BuzzFeed and Reason "fringe"?
“a newer, astounding piece in reason.com that compares Bill de Blasio and Obama including such bon mots as "Both Obama and de Blasio are married to black women they met at work."” What’s your point?
“I'm surprised Benghazi isn't and Obamacare aren't mentioned.” Again, I don’t see your point.
“No, this New Party nonsense is neither accurate nor appropriate for this article.” Again, who are you to judge whether it’s accurate? And if previous memberships of political parties are not "appropriate" information, then why is such information mentioned in many Wikipedia articles on politicians and even some non-politicians, as I pointed out?
Johnuniq: “What secondary source has written an analysis of these claims and their significance?” Those four sources are secondary sources, and the BuzzFeed writer was an initially skeptical source who was persuaded by the evidence. Renren8123 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually that first part was me, not Johnuniq, Renren. I have no idea who Morgen Richmond is, as he was not identified in the Smith piece, so his "sending over" information to Smith has little to do with what I said, which was, again, that Smith's article clearly states the opposite of what Kurtz was alleging: he says that the founder of the New Party, Joel Rogers, reiterated that there weren't members but more to the point that Obama didn't want to "work on it or join it or be identified with it". And Smith did not say that he received any documentation to verify that Obama was a member - only that "membership" was a concept they had. So your using this as confirmation that this dubious point belongs in the infobox as his "former political party" in the way that Reagan was a Kennedy Democrat or Hillary a Goldwater youth is stretching way beyond reasonable. As for why I am making a judgment about what's appropriate, that's what editors do here. And I am not alone - I looked back at previous discussions here and consensus has long been that these fringe or right-wing talking points are inappropriate to add. Yes, I caught your comment about talking points, but I stand by my comment - this is classic fringe nonsense, stemming from the right-wing Kurtz and others. There are lots of sources that repeat the claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii too. I didn't say your sources were fringe, I said that the "facts" they are presenting are fringe talking points that don't belong in this biography. My point about the reason.com de Blasio/Obama piece should be obvious: it is a straight-up opinion piece, no sources to verify his claim that "documents indicate" that Obama joined the party, and therefore not a reasonable source to be taken seriously for this "fact". As for Benghazi (I had removed Obamacare because in fact it was thrown in there) again I would have thought my sarcastic point was obvious. This New Party Stanley Kurtz National Review talking point is right up there with whether Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya who foisted death panels on an unsuspecting public while lying about what really went on in Benghazi. Right wing/fringe/nonsense, not going into the article, as determined by consensus. JOhnuniq seems to agree with me, but I'll let him speak for himself. Tvoz/talk 07:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tvoz: “Actually that first part was me, not Johnuniq”. Noted and duly amended.
“Smith's article clearly states the opposite of what Kurtz was alleging: he says that the founder of the New Party, Joel Rogers, reiterated that there weren't members”. Yes, that is what Smith says that Rogers said. Clearly, Smith himself does not agree with Rogers. Smith’s disagreement with Rogers is explicit: “UPDATE: Richmond sends over a New Party page from 1997 that makes pretty clear that they saw themselves at the time as having members”. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Therefore it’s not for us to doubt Smith.
“And Smith did not say that he received any documentation to verify that Obama was a member”. I never claimed that Smith had said that he had “received any documentation”. Smith says that Kurtz “yesterday turned up something that appears to contradict claims from Obama and others that he’d never been a member of something called the New Party”. Smith reports Rogers as having contradicted Kurtz's claims, but Smith himself never vouches for Rogers’s denials. Just look at the language: “he also said”, “Rogers stuck by”, “Rogers added” etc. The most that Smith is willing to concede is the lack of clarity about “what membership required or entailed”, though that doubt too is somewhat lifted with the final update. Smith does not challenge the existence of membership or Obama’s status as a member.
“So your using this as confirmation that this dubious point belongs in the infobox”. Well, it doesn’t have to belong there, but it should be somewhere in the article. But, if it’s to appear in the main text, it’ll take a full sentence, rather than the two words that I contributed.
“Hillary a Goldwater youth”. Do you know how many citations there are in Hillary Clinton’s Wikipedia article to support the assertion that she supported Barry Goldwater? Just one: a book written by a Goldwater Republican in 2006 (not exactly an unbiased source surely!) that can’t be accessed by me or, I presume, by you either. Yet, I provide four online citations from reputable sources, two conservative, one libertarian and one moderate/liberal, and yet that’s just dismissed. Also, you mentioned being ‘appropriate’. Why is it appropriate to mention the political affiliations that Clinton held when she wasn’t even an adult yet, while it’s allegedly inappropriate to mention the political affiliations that Obama held when he was not only an adult but a politician too? That’s just nonsensical, especially when an entire paragraph is dedicated to Clinton’s childhood politics, whereas I intended to add merely literally two words on the matter of Obama’s former adult, professional politics.
“As for why I am making a judgment about what's appropriate, that's what editors do here.” That’s another straw man. I never claimed you couldn’t make judgments about what’s appropriate. I said you can’t make judgments about what’s accurate: that would be original research on your part. As for what’s appropriate, of course you can make the judgment, but Wikipedia should be consistent. I have given you examples, and you yourself have mentioned examples, where politicians’ and even non-politicians' previous political affiliations are mentioned. Why should Obama be an exception to this?
“There are lots of sources that repeat the claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii too.” Not reputable ones, though. As I said, The American Spectator, National Review, BuzzFeed and Reason are widely cited in many Wikipedia articles.
“it is a straight-up opinion piece, no sources to verify his claim that "documents indicate" that Obama joined the party, and therefore not a reasonable source to be taken seriously for this "fact"”. That’s another judgment by you of accuracy. Many Wikipedia articles cite many opinion pieces.
“This New Party Stanley Kurtz National Review talking point is right up there with whether Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya who foisted death panels on an unsuspecting public while lying about what really went on in Benghazi.” That’s just another straw-man argument.
“as determined by consensus”. The consensus is that information on political affiliations can go into an article, even if the subject is not a politician and even if those affiliations were held during childhood, and furthermore an entire paragraph can be included on the matter, even if there are only one or two citations and even if such citations are from very political sources that can’t be easily accessed. You agree with that, and yet you want such a strong exception for Obama that not even literally just two words on his previous political affiliation as an adult and a politician can be included, even though there are four easily-accessible citations from a politically diverse range of reputable sources. Renren8123 (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear, I oppose the edit, and I am not going to enter into a forum debate. In the above, the only substantive points relevant to this article are based on "that makes pretty clear" and "yesterday turned up something that appears to contradict claims". That kind of language is not suitable to establish that Obama was a member of a party, and this article is not the place to coatrack unsubstantiated opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Johnuniq: "I am not going to enter into a forum debate". OK, no problem. Why are you telling me that, though? Why not just stay silent, if that is what you wish to do? I repeat the fact that Smith does not deny the existence of a party membership or Obama's status as a party member. In fact, Smith says, "According to the minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting, which Kurtz found in an ACORN archive: Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party". Once again, I point out the contrast with Smith's reporting of Rogers's view, for which Smith does not vouch at all: “he also said”, “Rogers stuck by what he had told me”, “Rogers added” etc. Renren8123 (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Obama received an endorsement from a minor state party that existed for all of 6 years. Their endorsement is trivial, a speck of history unduly magnified by a select group of right-wing activists, nothing more than that. The event is mentioned in the New Party (United States) article, as the endorsement is notable to them, but nowhere else as it is unimportant to the wider political world. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tarc: "Obama received an endorsement". The evidence that says he was endorsed also says that he was a member. "a minor state party". The party existed in mutiple states. "Their endorsement is trivial". I've addressed this point already. Please read my comments before replying. To repeat, how is it so trivial that it does not warrant literally just two words in what is a very extensive article, whereas Hillary Clinton's childhood political opinions warrant an entire paragraph in her article? "a speck of history unduly magnified by a select group of right-wing activists, nothing more than that". Tell that to Ben Smith and Reason, neither of whom can be described as "right-wing", but again I've addressed this point already. "it is unimportant to the wider political world". Is that why the moderate/liberal editor-in-chief of a major news website himself covered it? Renren8123 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Trivial factoid, a distorted version of which became a minor partisan campaign smear, not significant enough for the article, and shoehorning it in would violate NPOV. This has been discussed thoroughly here in the past. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikidemon: "Trivial factoid, a distorted version of which became a minor partisan campaign smear, not significant enough for the article". Once again, I request that commenters read before they reply. "shoehorning it in would violate NPOV". Again, I've addressed this point. But, I'll tell you what definitely does not constitute a NPOV: comments like "Overall, the country is clearly in stronger shape now than when Obama took office". It's OK to have an opinion, but clearly some of the people replying to me are being influenced by their biases, which is not OK. I find it rather worrying that contributors to, and administrators of, an encyclopedia feel no pressure even to pretend to be neutral! Renren8123 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- You don't need to quote little bits and pieces of what the other editors writes. Just respond with full sentences that get your point across, we'll be fine. Again, it is a minor party, unremarkable save for being a talking point for the Drudge Reports of the country. I won't be appearing in this article at any time, I am fairly comfortable in predicting. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tarc: "You don't need to quote little bits and pieces of what the other editors writes." If I don't, it's not necessarily clear which particular statement I'm replying to. That is the standard, accepted method of argument and rebuttal. I don't intend it to be insulting, if that's what you're implying. "it is a minor party". Past political affiliations to minor parties are often mentioned on the Wikipedia pages of politicians and even non-politicians, as I've already said. In fact, I gave some examples: Christopher Hitchens, John Reid. "unremarkable save for being a talking point for the Drudge Reports of the country". As I said, I provided four reputable sources, two of which are decidedly not right-wing. "I won't be appearing in this article at any time, I am fairly comfortable in predicting." Perhaps you are right, but that's not an argument for why it shouldn't, and it's not something that any of us should be proud of if we want Wikipedia to be a legitimate encyclopedia and not a patchwork of fiefdoms overseen by people with strong and unhidden biases. Renren8123 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not getting into a forum discussion either, over something that has been adequately explored here before - that's why I moved your initial comment from my talk page to here to see what other editors have to say. So far, all agree with my removal of your insertion of this into the article. I will add one point though: Hillary Rodham Clinton's teenaged (not childhood) stint as a "Goldwater girl" has been widely written about by many reliable and neutral sources, and is something that Hillary herself wrote about in Living History (see pp. 24, 32, 130, for example). There is absolutely no debate or contradictory evidence - it is a fact, just as Reagan being a Kennedy Democrat is a fact, and their well-known divergence in later years to different political positions is notable and why it is mentioned in their biographies. Tvoz/talk 21:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
A random (unsolicited) endorsement from the many he received in his senate campaign is not notable (certainly not here, on his main article; but it probably isn't noteworthy even on his Senate article, which doesn't list any other endorsements beyond the most politically significant one.) Additionally, the implication that he was an actual member of the party (as opposed to being endorsed by them) is not backed up by any evidence or even asserted by any reputable sources; the New Party was a party that attempted to gain ground through "fusion" endorsements (where they would endorse big-ticket candidates and people could vote for this candidate through them, allowing the party to gain followers and power without splitting the vote -- something that is common in eg. New York with the Working Families Party.) This means that their endorsement is insignificant and says nothing about Obama; they would have endorsed any candidate who got the nomination, because their strategy was to encourage voters to support the Democratic candidate (whoever it was) on their party line rather than on the Democratic line. Read their article for details; the point is, their endorsement was not significant to Barack Obama and therefore doesn't belong on this article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, complete insignificant to Barack Obama and his career. Just another fake "controversy" and loose reporting with little substance. Putting this in the info-box alongside the Democrat party is blatantly WP:UNDUE and misleading. Nothing to see here people, would recommend wrapping this up. Somchai Sun (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is a long discussion thread, but the point is neither of the sources are reliable. We had similar conversations about whether or not Obama was born in Kenya/is a Muslim etc. TFD (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
This page is enormous.
My Internet isn't as slow as some people's, but not as fast as others. Making two minor edits takes way longer than it should. It's a few bytes shorter, but this thing really needs a concerted weight-loss effort. I'll leave it to those with the slower and faster connections to be motivated and able enough, respectively. Yes, you can! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Even the Talk Page feels bulked down, to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, in both cases (article and talk) the size is quite reasonable. The page size script indicates the size of the readable prose of the article is just 56 kB (117 kB if you include the HTML); however, this inflates to an entire megabyte when you add in all the other crap, such as templates and references. I suspect templates are a significant reason for the slow load time, going by the large apparent number of them (see this page for a listing). Also, since the page receives a lot of traffic, it may stretch Wikipedia resources a wee bit. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not as huge as some articles around here. The good thing is that numerous other pages such as Presidency of Barack Obama, Early life and career of Barack Obama & Family of Barack Obama exist, which helps break it down. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- That is a good thing. I agree it's more in the bells and whistles than the text. I'll probably be back to trim some wordiness anyway, but won't bother with more than that. Someone still should, someday.
- Yeah, it's not as huge as some articles around here. The good thing is that numerous other pages such as Presidency of Barack Obama, Early life and career of Barack Obama & Family of Barack Obama exist, which helps break it down. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Does the number of people with an article watchlisted make a difference? I'd think it might, since it has to send more notifications. Could be that it's on some "special" watchlists, too. Come to think of it, I just remembered the article isn't too long after all. It's good you're making it slow. It's a real good thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
No Critical Views Allowed
This discussion has long outlive any usefulness it may have had. (non-admin closure) Calidum Go Bruins! 01:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
I just spent an hour skimming the Wiki articles of each president the US has had. These articles typically refer to actions, responses, and policies of the president, along with a description of how these events were received by the public, and how the president's popularity was affected. Notably, the article on Barack Obama is missing any information about the critical response many of his actions have received. This article reads like a campaign website, listing all of his "achievements" along with far too many legislative details, with little information about the history of how these things happened, or what resulted from them. Of note, the section on the 2010 midterms is a single sentence, and omits any mention of WHY Obama was so unpopular in 2010, and about how his 2010 legislative policies were received. The section on the 2012 elections omits any mention of HOW he won the election, or what sort of campaign message he was leveling against his opponent. The section on "health care reform" mentions far too many legislative details (that could easily be gleaned by reading the page on PPACA), while omitting any mention of what sort of criticisms were leveled against the policy, how it has affected Obama's popularity, or how the implementation of the new health care system was handled. Furthermore, there is no mention of the IRS targeting scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the many court cases against Obama's executive overreach, the fact that Obama was held in contempt by a federal court, the fact that Obama created the largest and most intrusive domestic surveillance operation in human history, his racially-motivated comments and policies, or the fact that he has been so widely and openly criticized as a totalitarian, a socialist, a fascist, and other labels for authoritarian philosophies. These types of facts are a major focus of the articles for previous presidents, and were certainly a dominant component of the page on George W. Bush during his presidency. The level of president-saluting sterilization in this article is positively Orwellian. TBSchemer (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC) As an example of this Orwellian cleansing, I included a series of polls showing that Obama is "the most divisive and polarizing president in history" in the first-term legacy section, and the change was rapidly reverted by Tarc. This leaves the section as a paragraph of praise from academics, with little general-public polling data. The reversion can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=603081323&oldid=603080058 TBSchemer (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
So does anyone here have an interest in seeing this article become more of a historical account and less of a campaign page, or am I the only one? TBSchemer (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
As a new wikipedia member and as someone who unfortunately read this chat, I can see very clearly that your ideology has compromised your ability to edit, TBSchemer. 1st Corinthians 11:9 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The POV problems with this article are serious and real. If any editors are interested in having a truly civil discussion about the POV problems with this article, please do so here, and refrain from personal attacks. WP:PERSONAL TBSchemer (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Just my two cents: If George W. Bush can have, "Some pundits labeled Bush 'the worst president ever'" in his article without there being much of a fuss, then Obama should at least have more info on criticism. Either that, or if people don't want to include criticism (which it seems like most people here are wanting) then that should be taken out of Bush's article. My point is that Wikipedia should not have a bias on either side, and we need a balancing of this kind of thing in order to ensure that. Having a political debate on this talk page doesn't solve anything. You may agree or disagree with the criticism leveled at Obama, but that's no reason to keep it out. The sentence could say, "Obama's critics assert...yada yada yada" to be clear that they are others' opinions. Again that's just my opinion. Oh and one more thing: please let's try and be civil to one another. Resorting to personal attacks does nothing but hurt people's feelings. Twyfan714 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
102 years ago, more than 1,500 people died when the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg and sank, and yet the liberal media have never held President Obama accountable for this failure of leadership! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Rcats needed
| This edit request to Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A redirect, Obama, needs rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:
- from this...
#REDIRECT [[Barack Obama]] {{R from surname}}
[[Category:Protected redirects]]
- to this...
#REDIRECT [[Barack Obama]]
{{Redr|hatnote|from surname|p2=nocat|from incomplete name|printworthy|protected}}
- WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE MIDDLE LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.
Template Redr is an alias for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. "Hatnote" is an alias for {{R mentioned in hatnote}}; the p# parameter is used to suppress Category:Surnames per this discussion. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Paragraph writing
Out of ~95 paragraphs in this article, around 40 begin with dates:
- In 2004, Obama received national . . .
- In 1963, Dunham met Lolo . . .
- In 1971, Obama returned to . . .
- In late 1988, Obama entered Harvard . . .
- In 1991, Obama accepted a . . .
- In 1993, he joined Davis, . . .
- In January 2003, Obama became chairman . . .
- In May 2002, Obama commissioned a . . .
- In December 2006, President Bush signed . . .
- On February 10, 2007, Obama announced . . .
- On August 23, Obama announced his . . .
- On April 4, 2011, Obama announced . . .
- On November 6, 2012, Obama won . . .
- On September 30, 2009, the Obama . . .
- On October 8, 2009, Obama signed . . .
- On March 30, 2010, Obama signed . . .
- On December 22, 2010, Obama signed . . .
- On February 17, 2009, Obama signed . . .
- In March, Obama's Treasury Secretary . . .
- In December 2013, Obama declared that . . .
- In July 2013, Obama expressed reservations . . .
- On April 20, 2010, an explosion . . .
- On July 14, 2009, House Democratic . . .
- On November 7, 2009, a health . . .
- On January 16, 2013, one month . . .
- In February and March 2009, Vice President Joe . . .
- On March 19, Obama continued his . . .
- On June 26, 2009, in response . . .
- On September 24, 2009, Obama became . . .
- In March 2010, Obama took a . . .
- On December 6, 2011, he instructed . . .
- On February 27, 2009, Obama announced . . .
- In June 2012, Obama said that . . .
- In 2011, the United States . . .
- In 2013, one journalist reported . . .
- In March 2011, as forces loyal . . .
- On October 9, 2009, the Norwegian . . .
- In June 1989, Obama met Michelle . . .
- In December 2007, Money estimated the . . .
Sometimes it happens several paragraphs in a row. This isn't professional writing. —Designate (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out - will look at it. But you really didn't need to take all of that time to transcribe each one. Tvoz/talk 16:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Obama as a six (6) year principal member of the international G7 not included on his Page
The G7 is currently meeting in Europe and Obama has issued his strongest foreign policy statement against Putin to date. Obama was asked to voice an international consensus opinion of the seven participating nations which was reported in the NY Times on this date as shown below. Is there any merit or explanation as to why the current page does not having a G7/G8 subsection since Obama has been and continues to be a de facto center of these meetings and a central international voice for expressing their consensus views. Could someone take a look at the quote included below (abridged) to make a comment on a possible G7/G8 subsection on this Page possibly under "Foreign Policy".
- Obama Gives Russia One-Month Ukraine Deadline at G7 Meeting; By PETER BAKER, NY TIMES, JUNE 5, 2014
- President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said Russia will face tougher sanctions from group members if President Vladimir V. Putin refuses to work with Ukraine’s new government.
- BRUSSELS — With the backing of other world leaders, President Obama effectively set a one-month deadline for Moscow to reverse its intervention in Ukraine and help quash a pro-Russian separatist uprising or else he said it would face international sanctions far more severe than anything it had endured so far. Mr. Obama and other leaders of seven major democracies meeting here demanded that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia recognize and negotiate directly with the newly elected leader of Ukraine, stop the flow of fighters and arms across the border and press separatists to disarm, relinquish seized public buildings and join talks with the central authorities in Kiev.
- “Russia continues to have a responsibility to convince them to end their violence, lay down their weapons and enter into a dialogue with the Ukrainian government,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference alongside Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain after a meeting of leaders of the Group of 7 industrial powers. “On the other hand, if Russia’s provocations continue, it’s clear from our discussions here that the G-7 nations are ready to impose additional costs on Russia.”
- “We will have a chance to see what Mr. Putin does over the next two, three, four weeks,” Mr. Obama said, “and if he remains on the current course, then we’ve already indicated what kinds of actions that we’re prepared to take.”
This summarizes Obama's position from over the last six months on Putin as well. However, it is the G7/G8 section which appears missing on this wikipedia Page as a recurrent event for Obama during his entire presidency. Is anything of this G7/G8 history for Obama something to consider for the Obama Page. FelixRosch (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Articles are not intended to reflect every day-to-day event. Usually that observation is made when people suggest adding the current attack-piece against Obama, but it is just as valid here. In six months, a secondary source may write how Obama's work at this G7 meeting marked a turning point which led to certain outcomes—that is when it would be appropriate to add something to this bio. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, not the day-to-day events. Its Obama's six-years relationship to the G7 that seems worthwhile for inclusion on the Obama page and the above quote is given as an example of only the most recent G7 meeting of the past six meetings (over the last six years) of the G7 of which Obama has been a central part. FelixRosch (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Chewing Gum at D-Day-ceremony and Mandela-funeral
[7] It is said that he wanted to quit smoking, but it is still an impertinent behavior. --Ich bin nicht dein Kollegah (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the article should be amended in some way, and if so, how? -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sacrebleu! Dave Dial (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- L'Amérique, te baise! -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please strike that through Scjessy. But anyways, not notable. Just the latest in trying to smear obama, and people being offended too much. NathanWubs (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll wager it will be listed on the bills of impeachment with the other Bs: Benghazi, Bergdahl, birth certificate - and bubblegum. Ok, it's nicorette, but you get the point. Newcomers please note that this is not a place to discuss what you don't like about Barack Obama. This is where we are supposed to be talking about how to improve the article. There are plenty of blogs and forums where you can vent your hatred. Tvoz/talk 22:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, I've found a source outside the Moonie press: Dok Zoom, "INPEACH! Obama Chewed Gum At D-Day Ceremony, Wingnuts Outraged", Wonkette, 7 June 2014. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll wager it will be listed on the bills of impeachment with the other Bs: Benghazi, Bergdahl, birth certificate - and bubblegum. Ok, it's nicorette, but you get the point. Newcomers please note that this is not a place to discuss what you don't like about Barack Obama. This is where we are supposed to be talking about how to improve the article. There are plenty of blogs and forums where you can vent your hatred. Tvoz/talk 22:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please strike that through Scjessy. But anyways, not notable. Just the latest in trying to smear obama, and people being offended too much. NathanWubs (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- L'Amérique, te baise! -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Correction of Daughter's name
Her name is Sasha and not Natasha.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama
Prissy1213 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Prissy1213: Sasha is her nickname. --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Natasha is one of the charges being leveled against Obama by the right wing, it shows he loves Russia because he named his daughter with a Russian name. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure if IP216 was endorsing this latest idiotic smear against Obama.--Somchai Sun (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Never heard this one. So is Malia's real name Boris? Birth certificates can be found in the Pottsylvania records office? Something is going on here. Someone inform Drudge. Dave Dial (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Move to Barack Hussein Obama
In line with Hillary Rodham Clinton--117.207.123.162 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- No idea why Hilary's article has that long name, but this one is consistent with Bill Clinton. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I thought these kind of pov pushes had died out. Also yeah probably the Hillary Clinton thing will probably change once she becomes president or something NathanWubs (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- HRC is far more well-known by her maiden+married name, and also frequently uses such on campaign literature and the like; that is why that article is what it is. IP users have been disrupting both the Clinton and the Sarah Jane Brown article with misogynist-tinged move requests for several years now. Now that they/he has failed in both, they/he appear to be branching out into other venues. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not necessary here. I don't know about Sarah Jane Brown but I have heard Hillary Rodham Clinton used a lot more than Barack Hussein Obama. In fact outside of right wing smears I can only recall his middle name being used during his inauguration and even then it was shortened to H. The two cases came be compared.--69.157.253.74 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly he used his full name when sworn in in 2009 (I don't remember about 2013). He's also joked about his middle names at times, especially considering Romney goes by his middle name. That being said, the page should remain where it is. Calidum Talk To Me 03:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not necessary here. I don't know about Sarah Jane Brown but I have heard Hillary Rodham Clinton used a lot more than Barack Hussein Obama. In fact outside of right wing smears I can only recall his middle name being used during his inauguration and even then it was shortened to H. The two cases came be compared.--69.157.253.74 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- HRC is far more well-known by her maiden+married name, and also frequently uses such on campaign literature and the like; that is why that article is what it is. IP users have been disrupting both the Clinton and the Sarah Jane Brown article with misogynist-tinged move requests for several years now. Now that they/he has failed in both, they/he appear to be branching out into other venues. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Tendentious sources such as Conservapedia use his full name in order to insinuate that he is a Muslim, not born in the U.S., not really president. "Common name" suggests that we keep the current name. TFD (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014
| This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents, Siena Research Institute, July 1, 2010
should be changed to
Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents, Siena Research Institute, July 1, 2010
to fix the link. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh I see it now, the ref tags are braking the links, I took those out so the msg would be visible here. Will do. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Birther (nonsense)
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.
Correction to article submission: Obama wasn't born in Honolulu, Hawaii; he had his records sealed up so that no one could see his true country of origin. This issue needs to be addressed on the article page instead of a false location of birth being posted instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.142.6 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Trolls really suck these days. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- You're several years late for that particular party. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Should Polling Data be included?
A Quinnipiac University poll has found that Barack Obama is considered to be the worst president since World War II.
Cites:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/02/Obama-Worst-President-World-War-II-Poll
DeanSoCal (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Who do the other 66% consider the worst president since 1945?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- If one actually looks at the poll data and breakdown, it becomes quite clear that making any sense of it requires OR. E.g., it is quite clear that nearness in time has an overwhelmingly large percentage of polled people only selecting the last two presidents. Who, except for presidential historians, would even know enough to rank Truman? The selling point of the poll "since WWII" is nonsense--unless the poll were restricted to such historians. What such a poll means...depends of course on what you want it to mean.Juan Riley (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It should include that he's the worst president since WW2. I love how Wiki protects Obama and i see no updates on his IRS, NSA, ACA Benghazi and other scandals? I read on Mitt's page that he use to be out of the state of Mass, but how about we write on how many golf trips, fund raisers and that 100 million dollar vacation Obama takes? How about all the corruption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7700:3A3:7DF6:E28F:E993:D19B (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- "Should Polling Data be included?"
- no.
- it's negative.
- we're just not going there.
- and that's pretty much it.
- cheers.
- Cramyourspam (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, but I feel the same way about all polls. They are easily manipulable, are only a snapshot of whatever/whoever is being polled, and are commonly subject to cherry picking/confirmation bias. I would not have any polls in this article or any other articles about Presidents. SMP0328. (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- You need a secondary source to interpret it. Another spin of the stats could be that Obama is considered the best post-WW2 president next to Reagan, Clinton and Kennedy. TFD (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
First sentence of lead
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.
The first sentence of the lead describes Obama as both ‘the 44th and current President of the United States’ and ‘the first African American to hold the office’. Should this latter description be moved elsewhere in the lead so that the first sentence focuses solely on Obama’s political position? As a quick comparison, the Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher articles mention their subjects’ social notability (being the first black and first woman leader respectively) in the second sentence, but leave aside the first one to focus on what they achieved, irrespective of race or sex. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Response
- Close The IP (no doubt a sock of someone) has opened numerous unnecessary RFCs. --NeilN talk to me 02:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- RFC tag removed per AN/I discussion; this page has enough eyes on it. No opinion on the proposal but leaning towards agreeing with it. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The suggestion is sensible at first blush.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Given the contentious history of race relations in the United States...particularly African-American history from the slave trade through the Civil Rights era...IMO being the first African-American president is a critical aspect of Obama's biography, and deserves first-sentence prominence. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- But Obama is technically only half African-American, because his mother is white. So a better description would be Mulatto, since he's half white, half black. Look at his parents. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Half African-American" isn't even a thing, reads up on what the term actually means sometime. As for mulatto, that is a slur on par with the n-word. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Then how about "mixed" or "biracial"? He is literally half of both, literally. The president's African look is simply more dominant, in which case the judging is based on his skin color only. But does race even matter in the 1st place? How about saying "descent" and acknowledging Obama's white side too? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- He's African-American. He's also biracial, of mixed race, multiracial, son of a Black African and a White American, etc. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. That's not the question here, but rather whether it's worth mentioning in the first sentence that he's America's first black President or whether to save that for later in the lede. As for what he's first at, he's first of a lot of things, first President from Hawaii, etc. With only 44 presidencies before, every one is going to be first at a lot of stuff. Not a big sample size. Personally, although at the time and in foresight having a non-white President is a huge step for America, in hindsight, as race becomes less of a hinderance to achievement one would expect, it becomes less and less of a defining characteristic. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- So you're saying Obama is not white, but black. I still think we should acknowledge his other half. Not necessarily in the first sentence but later in the lead. Keep in mind that there are also European Americans and White Americans, which Obama is literally half of. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- He's African-American. He's also biracial, of mixed race, multiracial, son of a Black African and a White American, etc. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. That's not the question here, but rather whether it's worth mentioning in the first sentence that he's America's first black President or whether to save that for later in the lede. As for what he's first at, he's first of a lot of things, first President from Hawaii, etc. With only 44 presidencies before, every one is going to be first at a lot of stuff. Not a big sample size. Personally, although at the time and in foresight having a non-white President is a huge step for America, in hindsight, as race becomes less of a hinderance to achievement one would expect, it becomes less and less of a defining characteristic. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Then how about "mixed" or "biracial"? He is literally half of both, literally. The president's African look is simply more dominant, in which case the judging is based on his skin color only. But does race even matter in the 1st place? How about saying "descent" and acknowledging Obama's white side too? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Half African-American" isn't even a thing, reads up on what the term actually means sometime. As for mulatto, that is a slur on par with the n-word. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you're too lazy to read the FAQ, Supersaiyen312, it says that Wikipedia defines the whole issue of Barack Obama's race by self-identification: Obama says he is African-American. End of story.
- Not to mention the vast majority of reliable sources agree on this.--67.68.160.163 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm completely with Tarc on this. The history of race in America - the continuing history - makes his election and re-election utterly extraordinary, and is absolutely a defining characteristic of his life story, which this article is telling. This is so notable that I believe it is necessary to be in the first sentence, and even if there are subsequent African American presidents in the near future, his being the first will always be a great deal more notable than the fact that he is the first from Hawaii. Tvoz/talk 04:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- If anyone´s interested, how african american Barack Obama really is is being discussed again at the African American article. [8] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tvoz above. The most notable (among other notable things) of the Obama presidency is his election and reelection as an African-American. To contend otherwise is to be (suspiciously) disingenuous. Juan Riley (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Talk, talk and more talk, but the fact is not what Obama (or some of these Talk entries) want you to believe --- it is what is factual that is important, and it is a FACT that he is the first biracial President. Maybe someday the United States will have an African-American or even a Mongoloid-American President, but today we have our first Biracial President. Sirswindon (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Lol. "Mongoloid-American". Inventing that word is a beautiful way to show that what one is saying is utter nonsense.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Most of America sees Obama as mixed race, not black. So (in my opinion) it should be changed to non-white or mixed race President, or just leave the racial aspect out entirely in the lead. I guess the definition of 'African-American' varies, but I personally don't see Obama as a black man. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Obama: Great President or Greatest President?
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.
Where can we add this question to the article? Teetotaler 30 July, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nowhere. 1) Questions don't appear in articles. 2) The analysis of Obama's performance should not be a product of WP:RECENTISM. --NeilN talk to me 13:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- See also WP:NPOV.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- This has to be a joke... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.70.175 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's a reference to a recurring bit from the Colbert Report, in which Stephen Colbert (in his persona as a right-wing talk-show host) asked his guests whether George W. Bush was a "great President? Or the greatest President?" When the guests would demur by pointing out some aspect of Bush's abysmal record of failure and incompetence, Colbert would regretfully inform them that those two choices were the only ones available. I'd assume that the original poster is suggesting, obliquely, that he finds this article biased in favor of Obama. Or maybe he's just having fun. MastCell Talk 17:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Cult of personality
Would this be the appropriate article to mention and/or link the assertions recently added at Cult of personality#United States that the Obama presidency is a cult of personality, or is that information better suited to either the Presidency, or perhaps the Public image, article? 2600:1006:B11F:927A:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Recently added? It has been even more recently removed, with a request that it be discussed on that article's Talk page. Let's await that development. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- ^ a b c d Fram, Alan (4 March 2014). "Obama 2015 budget focuses on boosting economy". Yahoo! News. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
- ^ Calmes, Jackie (4 March 2014). "Obama's Budget Is a Populist Wish List and an Election Blueprint". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 March 2014.