Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 81

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75 ← Archive 79 Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83

Should Trump be listed in the Infobox as Obama's successor?

There is a clear consensus here not to list anything in the "successor" box until the inauguration. MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

Currently Trump is listed as Obama's successor in the infobox. I do not believe he should be listed as no one has succeeded Obama yet. There is precedent to not include the successor. In 2009 before Obama took office, he was not listed as George W Bush's successor. There were discussions about it on Talk:George W. Bush. So should we go with the same now and remove Trump until he is sworn in? -- GB fan 17:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It makes little sense as it to have him the "incumbent" and a "sucessor". Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Trump has not succeeded Obama yet; technically he hasn't even officially been chosen yet, as the Electoral College meets in December to cast their votes and the new Congress accepts the votes. Anything could happen between now and then, so Trump shouldn't be listed. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
For all we know, Trump could die before he's even inaugurated. That's why we leave it blank until it actually happens (when he's inaugurated). This is really a no-brainer. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree - wait until he is succeeded before listing a successor. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Should we fill in the term_end? Even if something were to happen with Trump, the end of his term should not change. PackMecEng (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
His term end date should be filled in when his term ends, not before. We know when his projected term end date is and can assume that it will not end before that, but we don't know for sure. Things could happen that causes his term to end earlier. -- GB fan 21:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
True, fair point. Retract what I said. PackMecEng (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Consensus is against the successor, please remove. Put in for it the same note. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes "Donald Trump (as president elect)", just as we do in all successional series where the title changes for the next person in line such as with "interim" people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • That doesn't make any sense at all. We should not put the successor in because there is no guarantee that will happen. Moreover, Obama will not be succeeded by a "president elect" anyway, but by a president. Nor should we have the term end, because that isn't a guarantee either. In both cases, the clear choice is to wait until the inauguration. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's quite clear that some people on this talk page are ardent Clinton supporters, this makes them blind to the facts and religious in their anti-Trump crusade. Both Joe Biden and Michelle Obama have Mike Pence and Melania Trump listed as their respective successors. Let's be reasonable and put Trump as Obama's successor, rather than engaging if fringe theories and scurrilous gossip about how Trump will not be the next president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyheg2 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Liking Clinton or Obama is not relevant;(and casting aspersions on others is not helpful) Trump has not even officially been chosen as the successor, let alone actually succeeded him. Just because the other pages get it wrong doesn't mean we should here, too. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes It's OK to put it in Trump's infobox, so it's OK to put it here. Does anyone really believe the arguments against it would succeed in Trump's article? Of course not. As long as "elect" is there, it's perfectly clear what it means from the context. Honestly, the arguments against it are just semantic hair splitting. Spellcast (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mistakes made on the Trump page don't mean they should be replicated here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No. The succession is a process with four steps, popular election, EC vote, acknowledgment in the Congress of the EC result, and swearing in. Only one of those happened and as others have said the template is for incumbent which Obama remains until Jan 20, 2017. 198.255.197.105 (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Firstly strictly speaking nobody has been elected president yet... that happens when the electoral college convenes and votes. Only the electors of that college have been elected on Nov. 8. Secondly there's still over two months to go before inauguration. A 70 year old Trump might for instance get a heart attack and die before inauguration, which would meen that Pence becomes President on Jan 20, so nothing's (ever) certain. A successor should thus only be added in the infobox on Jan 20. As to Biden and Michelle Obama, the same goes for their infoboxes -- fdewaele, 14 November 2016, 14:00 CET.
  • There are a few things the 'yes' few are missing. If anyone is the current successor to this president, it is Joe Biden, even if you want to believe an incumbent has a successor at the same time. Moreover, they seem to be forgetting that this is a biography, not a presidency article - our president biographies almost never put who came into office next in the lead because it is almost never biographically of such import. They do, after they have left office, change the template to no longer incumbent, when they only, in fact, have been succeeded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No Per 331dot and Scjessey. Let's at least wait until the Electoral College votes or until he's inaugurated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall that they were quite eager to proclaim Obama the successor of George W. Bush in 2008. You can bet that Obama's name was in Bush's info-box within seconds of his election. I think Wikipedia is on the #notmypresident bandwagon. Shameless. 184.153.89.10 (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of exposing myself to investigation, my research into the George W. Bush article here shared a similar fate, albeit far less freewheeling edit wars because not as many editors were on Wikipedia at the time. The point where the article stood roughly eight years ago is in the same position, to not include a successor until he or she is inaugurated. 24.13.183.119 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes I don't think Wikipedia shall be some bureaucratic organisation where even things that are obvious must be confirmed and have reference. There's smaller than 1% chance that he won't succeed Obama. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Itsyoungrapper: You seem to be saying that you do think it should be listed, but you posted "no", it shouldn't be. Which is it? The issue is not that it is obvious and needs to be confirmed, it is that 1) Trump has not technically been chosen yet and 2) won't technically succeed Obama until noon on January 20th. As an encyclopedia, we deal in technicalities. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@331dot: I apologize and thank you for notifying me. I think it's very very very improbable that Trump won't be selected as President by the Electoral College. This hasn't happened since 1836 I guess and even though Johnson was selected as President. Itsyoungrapper (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It was also considered improbable that Trump would win a primary, improbable that he would be nominated, and improbable that he would win. Yet he did all of that. 331dot (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes because we do it for all the other state/government leaders infoboxes, during transition periods. PS: Let's just be sure whatever's decided here, gets adopted at the Joe Biden article. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: In state elections, the election does indeed choose the successor. No state uses an electoral college to choose its governor. Technically Trump has not yet been chosen as the successor. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Changing to No, as (memory kicking in) we didn't show Obama in George W. Bush's infobox, before Obama took office. We should wait until January 20, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - but after 15 December Notthebestusername (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Notthebestusername What does 15 December have to do with this? -- GB fan 17:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
    • (Added correction later - sorry, that should have been 19 December) Notthebestusername (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I believe that is when the Electoral College meets in state capitals to actually cast their votes for President. As already stated, technically Trump has not even been chosen yet to succeed Obama. He isn't chosen until the votes are cast and then counted by the new Congress in January. 331dot (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
        • The electors meet 19 December to vote. The votes are counted until 6 January. That is when we will know for sure who is the President-elect. 15 December has no significance at all. -- GB fan 01:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
There will be a successor at noon on January 20. Let's just wait for the inauguration. SMP0328. (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree, there should be no one listed in any infobox as successor until the succession has actually happened. -- GB fan 11:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No - There is no other President until the Electoral Votes are official and that person is inaugurated on January 20, 2017. Teammm talk
    email     07:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump, but this debate surprises me and seems political. For as long as I've been reading Wikipedia, I've always seen successors listed in infoboxes before they actually take office. Browsing around Wikipedia, that still seems to be the case now. The General-Secretary to-be of the UN is listed in the infobox, as is the nominated AG of the United States, the new Senate Minority Leader, etc. I have trouble finding another instance where the successor is *not* listed before taking office. I realize that Trump is widely disliked to a historically unprescedented extent, but I think that common practice should be followed. OrthodoxLinguist (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@OrthodoxLinguist: My opposition is not political, it is based in the simple fact that Trump has not even officially been designated the successor to Obama, let alone actually succeeded him. I would oppose listing Hillary Clinton had she won the Electoral College. Just because this is done wrong in other pages doesn't mean it should be here, too. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@331dot: Except that, in effect, it does. In general, Wikipedia tries to follow consistent rules and policies, otherwise it's open to arbitrary bias. Similar situations should be treated similarly. In all the years I've read Wikipedia, I've always, as far as I can remember, seen this rule followed, even in cases where, like here, some one-in-a-million event could take place and change things. Looking around current Wikipedia article for similar situations, in every case that I could think to check, the successor is listed in the infobox. Whether your personal opposition is political or not isn't at issue. I have no reason not to take you at your word. But if something is the default practice and only in this one case does it become an issue, the appearance of bias is unavoidable. Trump is Obama's successor. He's recognized as such in law and receives federal funding to help with the transition, already now. Theoretically, the EC *could* change that when they meet in a month, but at this point, their meeting is de facto a formality. In Canada, Trudeau was listed as Harper's successor from the time the election results were clear, before he met with the Governor General and was formally invited to form a government. Technically, the monarch *could* appoint anyone. In actual fact, though, whoever leads the party that can manage majority support in the House of Commons becomes the PM. I see the merit to your argument. Really, I could see it going either way. But when this is a long established practice, changing it in this one particular case I'd inappropriate. OrthodoxLinguist (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
No. In law, the successor to the President is the Vice President, and it was another article entirely where this nonsensical jumping the gun (which is what I would call arbitrary) that brought me to this one -- not politics at all, rather language brought me here, and the odd desire by some to state things that have not happened, and do so in a nonsensical way. At base, your point and others is, 'we don't mean he is the successor, we mean he will be the successor', but the field is not 'will be the successor'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, Alanscottwalker makes perhaps the most compelling argument against doing this. Until the Inauguration, Joe Biden is the successor. See United States presidential line of succession. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - The infoboxes for congressmen and other officials have already been updated to show their elected successors. (e.g. Mike Pence, Harry Reid) I don't see a reason to treat this article differently. At most, we may wait until after the Electoral College has elected the next President, but I still think we can update the infobox now. Edge3 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Those other articles are held to a lower standard, apparently. It should not happen until the Inauguration, because we cannot be certain Trump will be the successor until he actually is. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If that is the standard we use for other articles, then why wouldn't we apply the same standard here? Edge3 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Why would we use a lower standard for this article? Why shouldn't we hold those articles to this higher standard? -- GB fan 00:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It's the established practice in other articles. Sorry, but I just have trouble understanding why we want this article to remain inconsistent with other politicians' articles. Edge3 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You're saying the established practice is to say things that are inaccurate in WP:BLP's. Regardless of practice, where sloppiness is fine, it's wrong and does not accord with BLP policy or common sense, in this article certainly. This living person has simply in fact and in law not been "Succeeded by" another living person. It just is the way it is -- that cannot happen until, he leaves office at the end of his term of being the "Incumbent", or by some other less fortunate way. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You're saying that Mike Pence, Harry Reid, and all other similar articles of politicians are currently violating the BLP policy? That's quite a strong claim. If it were a BLP violation then those infoboxes would have been reverted by now. They have not been reverted. Edge3 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't change the subject. I've explained why it is a BLP violation in this article. You are free to discuss BLP in those other articles talk pages but I would if I were you, be attendant to the language used in those articles.. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I still don't understand what you're saying. If you're making a BLP claim then it impacts the articles of several other US politicians. The widespread acceptance on other articles implies current practice. WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, and I still see no argument as to why Obama should be treated differently from the rest. Edge3 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
There isn't any broad consensus whether a politician should hacve a successor listed in the infobox before actually being succeeded. The consensus here for this article appears to be no. The consensus for other articles appears to be yes. That is the way Wikipedia works. If you want to try to change this consensus or get a site wide consensus start an RFC. A specific one here, or a site wide one at a place like the village pump. -- GB fan 19:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I've begun a discussion on the MOS talk page, so hopefully there will be project-wide clarity on what to do. Feel free to chime in if you'd like. Maybe I should also start an RfC, but I'm not sure yet. Edge3 (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Really? I actually find it hard to understand how anyone can claim they don't understand we don't put falsehoods in articles. If you can't understand that this person has not been "succeeded by" anyone, in law or and in fact, then you do not really understand this article.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Note: Given the apparent consensus established here and on the George W. Bush article eight years ago, I added guidance on Template:Infobox_officeholder/doc#Usage to establish project-wide consistency. Edge3 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No - There is no other President until the electoral votes are confirmed by congress and he is inaugurated. —Fundude99talk to me 03:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Exactly so. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Wow Wikipedia is one big joke. This is supposed to be neutral? You losers are still refusing to list Trump as the successor? You are in a state of denial. Your candidate lost, Trump is going to be president. Get over it! There is no logical reason whatsoever why Trump shouldn't be listed as the successor. Even Melania Trump is listed as the successor on Michelle Obama's article. For every single senate race, their successor is listed. On every. single. other. politician's. article on Wikipedia their successor is listed!! I don't know if you people are paid CTR shills or just radical leftists who hope that by throwing temper tantrums you can change the result of the election. Well guess what losers, it's not going to happen! And by tainting these high profile articles by showing your bias and not even attempting to be neutral, you make all of Wikipedia look bad. Shame on you. Ag97 (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I only see one person in this conversation throwing a temper tantrum and that is you. I am not trying and wouldn't want to change the outcome of the election whatever it might be when the actual election for president happens on 19 December and the votes are counted on 6 January. When that happens the person elected will succeed President Obama at noon on 20 January. This will most likely be Trump. At that point he will be the successor, until then he isn't. If the consensus that forms here is that we add Trump before any of that happens, I accept it, even though I won't agree that it is correct. I truly believe that whatever the outcome of the state elections for electors was, a successor should not be listed until they have actually taken office. I understand the reasonable editors on the other side, just disagree. I do discount the opinions of editors though that try to throw insults and temper tantrums to express their opinion. -- GB fan 03:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, this is a no-brainer. You can't be a successor until you have actually succeeded. I suggest we archive this discussion, as the consensus is clearly with exclusion until the inauguration. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No do not list as "successor". He is just the projected successor. --SI 19:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No, per WP:BALL. Jonathunder (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A little too hagiographic

This is Wikipedia and Barack Obama is a saint of cultural marxism but his presidency was not without its fair share of controversies, neither was his personal life, with Rev Wright, et al. My goodness, if only we could be so 'neutral' about Donald Trump (who is succeeding him, by the way; you might want to add that in the info-box). 184.153.89.10 (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is written neutrally, contrary to your claim. The controversy concerning Wright, for example, is already in the article under the "religious views" section. Editors of this page have reached a consensus that Obama's "successor" (per infobox) should not be listed until he's actually been, er... succeeded. Make sense, does it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
When the article used to have a "Controversies" section, but no longer does, it is not neutral. In fact, over the last four years this entry is reading more and more like a very carefully edited (not in a good way i.e. censored) piece for use in Obama's presidential library. As for your editing staff, no disrespect, but history is full of examples of groupthink and other cognitive biases which color a group's perception and alter their collective decisions, leading them incrementally astray from a path of reality. I've been a writer, a published author, and editor since 1989 (27 years). As such, I respectfully concur with the statement regarding this article's hagiographic nature. Accurate articles are comprehensive, containing the good, the bad, and the ugly. By definition, politically correct articles are neither comprehensive nor accurate.Clepsydrae (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Your first assumption is plainly wrong. Per WP:Criticism "Controversy" sections are to be avoided, and criticism worked in throughout the article, as appropriate and WP:Due - such sections are said there to be "troll magnets". This entire talk page section, and the rest of your comment when it is not wrong, appears to be useless. Make a policy compliant editing proposal (or edit the article in compliance with policy and see if other editors accept your version of your "reality") - because no one should take your word that your non-specific and incorrect claims are valid just because you appeal to your own authority. As someone who has basically not edited this article substantively but has edited President US Grant (no controversy section there, rather due criticism worked throughout), I do note that the current opinion of this article (or of its editors) says you are mistaken or wrong in your unsupported opinion or mistaken claims, as it is a WP:Featured Article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a very, very brief mention of Wright. I seem to recall that when Obama was elected, his name appeared in Bush's info-box within seconds. Wikipedia has already placed the names of Trump's designates in the info-boxes of their predecessors. 184.153.89.10 (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if we should invent something like "presumed successor" for these kind of situations (like Trump in Obamas infobox). It´s a passing problem, but perhaps a recurring one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that would be a bad idea. There's already enough infobox creep as it is without adding possible outcomes to them as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Any criticism that uses the term "Cultural Marxism" in (seeming) earnest can be dismissed as extreme right-wing trolling right out of hand, even if their own patron saint has been elected President. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Technically speaking Trump only qualifies as "somewhat conservative"[1] since he is extreme-right (by EU standards at least if not by USA standards) on only a handful of issues, and on other things he is quite independent-or-centrist, usually in an anti-establishment sense. Ted Cruz is more the generic SuperConservative(tm) than Trump, and so to a lesser degree was Ben Carson; contrast with Rand Paul, who has a voting record that is only slightly less conservative than Cruz on a wide variety of issues, but is a libertarian-leaning-independent on a few specific issues (which makes him more conservative on monetary policy but more independent-or-centrist on foreign policy than Cruz for instance).
And in reply to the original posting by 184.153.89.10 complaining about mistreating Trump'16 versus Obama'08, although it is true that the GWB infobox was modified within seconds, it was reverted, and within a few days the GWB article had no Obama in the infobox, and continued not to have him there until the final fourth step (popvote ecVote countingByNewSenate inaug) was finished. Here is the final day in November 2008,[2] and I looked back to roughly the 7th to see whether Obama was in the infobox more often than not (then got bored -- he was elected on Nov 4th 2008 if anybody cares to dig deeper into alleged wikipedia-editor-bias stuff). Seemed just fine.
Personally I disagree with that long-standing consensus, and think it would be fine to list successor=Obama with a footnote that this was subject to ecVote+count+inaug, just like it ought to be fine to list successor=Trump right now over in the Obama article with a footnote that this was subject to count+inaug still. But it is wrong to say that wikipedia's mainspace content is purposely biased, although because we emphasize WP:RS and because media bias exists there is *some* leftwards-lean to enWiki by USA standards... though I suspect by French standards it might look like a rightwards-lean because the spectrum there is shifted compared to here. Wikipedia's reliance on traditional media outlets might help explain why people like 184.153 perceive bias. Or maybe there is a specific criticism forthcoming, about a specific flawed sentence? If so, please start with one at a time, don't just paste the whole body-prose here.  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We have the designated successor for many of the outgoing Governors and Cabinet-level positions as well as Cabinet secretaries. They are listed on there, there is no difference for the President of the United States, as Governors are equally considered to be respective heads of state. It is inappropriate to not have consistency across Wikipedia, and I am offended by the refusal of you all to hold every page to the same standard. Κοματσουλάκης (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Design an RFC that discusses having successors listed as soon as they are elected/nominated sitewide. This will need to be discussed at a central location such as the village pump. Until then individual articles can generate their own consensus. I have my opinion, that there are no successors until they are sworn in, but abide by the consensus on the individual articles. - GB fan 15:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

Below 'preceded by', a 'succeeded by' line should be added, reading and linking to Donald J Trump's page. 2601:602:8802:2B70:4DC1:21D7:264:E6B9 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done until he leaves office. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Add

You should add: President Barrack Obama sacks 23+ russian diplomats the day before the end of the year (Guardian/BBC).

, starting a potencial incident that will lead to World War III purely against the United States and the United Kingdom.

No wonder the United States must bribe it´s way to obtain any friendliness, there being so few friends that they make, or for that matter keep. I suppose this last is a policy statement defacto, and should be placed under the heading of, United States International Policy of the last 200 years, plus incidentals after World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.63.146 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Obama employed russian diplomats? That is interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The issue is already covered in Post-U.S. election of 2016 and Sanctions imposed on Russia including comments by D.Trump. –2A03:2267:0:0:601C:F335:641F:2D2A (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Only one half-sister is mentioned in the side-card

Additionally, her name is incomplete. Below you will find a list (in chronological order) of Barak Obama's confirmed siblings.

In the right-hand side-card, under "Relatives", please change "Maya Soetoro (half-sister)" to: 

Malik Abongo (Roy) Obama (half-brother)
Auma Obama (half-sister)
Abo Obama (half-brother)
Mark Okoth Obama Ndesandjo (half-brother)
David Ndesandjo (half-brother) 
George Hussein Onyango Obama (half-brother)
Maya Soetoro-Ng (half-sister)

Thank you!

Not done: Generally we do not list non-notable people in infoboxes, even if they are related. WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLP in general directs us to err in favor of privacy. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

s Sdfsdfosdf (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Please remove the "needs update" tag from the lead because it's ridiculous and wrong. It is perfectly up to date; Obama remains as the current POTUS until Noon January 20. It doesn't need any update. 189.69.12.153 (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Agreed. Like we'll forget to update all of these articles. There's still 16 hours and twelve minutes (as of this posting) to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. 189.69.12.153 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Say that he is no longer the current president since Obama is no longer the president. Kmg10303 (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: You're wrong. He's president until 12 noon Eastern time on January 20. That is just under 14 hours from now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection

This article may have to be protected until Noon EST, 20 January 2017. Many folks don't realize that that's when Trump succeeds Obama. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is already semi-protected. Let's just keep an eye on it; we really can't add full protection pre-emptively. --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Navboxes Error

Down near the bottom of the page there's a syntax error of some sort with the {{Navboxes}}. I cannot isolate the cause though. Anyone more proficient with this stuff able to help? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't find it. Has it been solved? --Jhertel (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"Grew up in the Pacific"?

In the lede section it says "Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii two years after the territory was admitted to the Union and grew up in the Pacific." I contend that "grew up in the Pacific" (the link is to the Pacific Ocean) is meaningless. Where he actually grew up: born in Hawaii, a year in Washington State, another 5 years in Hawaii, 5 years in Indonesia, and 8 years in Hawaii. Clearly he spent most of his growing-up time in Hawaii (and none of it in the Pacific Ocean). For purposes of the lede I think it should say something like "grew up mostly in Hawaii, except for five years in Indonesia." I am open to other ways of expressing his youth. Since this is the lede it should summarize and not go into great detail. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Good points. After some consideration of how to phrase it, I chose to change it to "He grew up mostly in Hawaii, but also lived one year in Washington state and four years in Indonesia during his childhood." I think that is not too much information, and rather relevant, as it takes some time to actually find this information from the much more detailed sections later in the article and is a useful summary of his childhood to bring in the lead. As always, the sentence is still open to subsequent rephrasing if anyone finds better ways to phrase it. :-) --Jhertel (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection question

I notice that this page, along with the pages about Donald Trump and his wife Melania have been extended confirmed protected in the past couple of days. This page and Donald Trump have been given indefinite protection and Melania Trump has been given protection for 1 year. My question is whether we plan to keep them this way, like we do semi for several thousand articles already, or if we plan to reduce to semi again once the high vandal risk goes down (Trump was inaugurated the other day). I'm simply asking because we have never used indefinite extended confirmed protection on pages about presidents before, and I thought it was virtually never used indefinitely on articles not related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Can somebody confirm please.

Gourleyo (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping the protecting admin. Regarding Donald Trump, it's only a very short term measure due to a) current news and extremely high visibility; and b) currently disputed content. See this. Indefinite, on Trump, is a means to prevent the article defaulting to no protection upon expiry. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
We can reevaluate in a year whether ec protection is really necessary. It clearly seems necessary at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I asked about Trump in November following his victory and was told that, but I thought I'd ask again. It just seemed weird to indefinitely extended confirm protect a page only after he has ceased to be president. Gourleyo (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I see it was me who answered you last time :) Protection was reduced that time within several days, and the semi-protection worked, on the whole. This article and Melania Trump don't seem like good candidates for ECP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I protected both since I see ongoing disruption. Once the inauguration hype is over, we can re-evaluate the protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

In the post-presidency section, add that the Obamas moved to Kalorama, Washington, D.C. on leaving office. Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/obama-kalorama-washington-dc-leases-house/

This is essential information for the reader, who will be asking "So where did he go to live after being president?" Valentina Cardoso (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis

There is nothing in article about most important International event of 2014 - Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), and about the reaction of Obama (International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis) on that event. This is weird !!!! M.Karelin (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – when making an edit request, provide an exact copy of the text you want in the article, it's not clear what you want. Laurdecl talk 01:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

I would like to point out the pronoun error in the first paragraph that—from my observations—breaks with Wikipedia precedent. I move to change "... was the first African American President of the United States, serving as the 44th President from 2009 to 2017." to "... is an American politician who served as the 44th and first African American President of the United States."

However, I will rescind my request if there is a new protocol involving the use of past tense to describe his relation to the presidency. Thank you. Frevangelion (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – Personally, I find the second sentence confusing: "the 44th and first African American". This change would probably require consensus. Laurdecl talk 01:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The article has been changed back to the standard format for a president: "...is an American politician who served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2017. He was the first African American to serve as president...". This probably represents consensus as it has been in this format for years.--MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Net neutrality

After 30 days without discussion:

Please add [[File:111014 NetNeutrality Final.ogv|thumb|right|108px|<small style="font-size:xxsmall">11/10/14 WH.gov</small>]] at the begin of the internet policy section. 2A03:2267:0:0:601C:F335:641F:2D2A (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done, lack of discussion is not consensus. There wasn't any discussion even by the proposer. - GB fan 18:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
No discussion at all (in the 30 days before the archive-bot does its duty) is not controversial, and the whitehouse.gov source page + video were blanked for obvious reasons. The edit request was IMHO sensible + specific. I take the 5th for necessary in the four WP:ER general considerations, and fixed the source-URL on commons. Now it's your job to check if that counts as You can help make this article even better! –2A03:2267:0:0:F07F:4BB:C093:71D2 (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It is not my job to do anything on here, like most on here am a volunteer. If you want it added you need to convince others why it belongs and you haven't done that. - GB fan 15:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Post-presidency (2017–present)

Barack Obama's presidency ended at noon on January 20, 2017, immediately following the inauguration of his Republican successor, Donald Trump. After the inauguration, Obama lifted off on Marine One, circled the White House, and flew to Joint Base Andrews.[1] The family rented a house in Kalorama, Washington D.C.[2]

Presidential library

Main article: Barack Obama Presidential Center

The Barack Obama Presidential Center[3] is the planned presidential library of Barack Obama. The center will be hosted by the University of Chicago, and will be located in Jackson Park on the South Side of Chicago, Illinois. Once completed, it will become the 14th site in the National Archives and Records Administration's presidential library system.[4] The nonprofit Barack Obama Foundation was set up to oversee the creation of the Center and the building of its site.

2607:FEA8:20E0:6C3:80C9:E3C5:6DE0:AA2B (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Korte, Gregory (January 20, 2017). "Inside Barack Obama's final hours in the White House". USA Today.
  2. ^ Kosinski, Michelle (27 May 2016). "Peek inside Obama's post-presidential pad". CNN. Retrieved 22 January 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "The Obama Presidential Center". barackobamafoundation.org.
  4. ^ "Obama Foundation FAQs". Barack Obama Foundation.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

It says that Obama left in Marine One. Isn't technically no longer Marine One once the passenger is no longer president? 74.90.249.37 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Obama took off in Executive One on January 20th, not Marine One. Marine One carries the president. Wickegan (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Done - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Presidential seal edit request on 24 January 2017

I am asking for the addition of the Presidential seal into President Barack Obama's ranking, as seen in past president's Wikipedia page.

I have written out the following text for a transfer onto the page and to remove the pre-existing labels. Fernandillo1 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, the above user is adding presidential seals into infoboxes of every president's article. However, they don't look very aesthetically pleasing since they can't be read in the infoboxes due to being shrunk by so much, so there's really no reason to have them there. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • How about the change in resolution in pixels from 35px to 45px, or any other enlargement of the seal? Fernandillo1 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

2605:E000:638D:AB00:340F:4913:B6FC:2FCA (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Not the first African American president, he was the first mixed race president..
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The facts in this article are reference with appropriate sources and references.

No viewpoint is more represented than another throughout the article. Mreaux (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)MR

Ukrainian crisis

In the intro, in the same section that says During his second term, Obama promoted......., the following sentence must be added: following the invasion in Ukraine, initiated the sanctions against Russia. Regards. 46.71.225.61 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Mlpearc Ukrainian crisis was the most prominent event in 2014 !! There is nothing about it in the article. That's shame !! 217.76.1.22 (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@217.76.1.22: Then it should be very easy for you to provide a reliable source to support the change you want made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Mlpearc According to The Atlantic, it was N1 event in 2014 - [3]. Is it enough source for you ?? Plz make an addition in intro. 178.160.172.191 (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A reliable source to support your claim is good enough for me, but I'm just one editor and to be clear I'll let someone else determine if this request should be actioned with this new information. Happy editing, - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Anthony22 and Tataral, plz pay attention on this section. Thanks. 178.160.172.191 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree that his response to the Ukrainian cricis should be mentioned in the article and preferably in the lead, that Obama and his government had a major role in the sanctions, and that they were highly important foreign policy initiatives of the Obama government (among the most important during his presidency in the field of foreign policy). I'm really supposed to sleep now, so I won't do the necessary edits myself right now, but I might have a second look on this issue tomorrow if it's not already resolved. --Tataral (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Conversations with Barack Obama

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2009/01/20/obamaofficialfoto.jpg (Replace the main photo on this page currently with this one.) N8k1ng (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: There's no way to determine from that link the license status of the image. —C.Fred (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I´m pretty sure it is the main foto we used his first term. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

Kyliewigginsisthebomb (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:American people of Luo descent

Do not remove this category! --223.140.235.216 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Final approval rating

Would it not be more accurate to say that he left office with a 57% approval rating, as per the RCP average, rather than cite a potentially disputable selection of poll(s)? --Varavour (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Drone death toll

During the Obama administration, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya killed an estimated amount of civilians between 64 and 116. [1]

Lucy.n.tate (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/world/us-reveals-death-toll-from-airstrikes-outside-of-war-zones.html


Thankfully it wasn't much more, considering this kind of technology. There's been so many civilians killed in horrible wars around the world, and at a higher number than this - and this is even without such things as the use of drones. So sad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.180.228 (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Immigration

Obama deported more undocumented immigrants than any other president in the history of the United States. [1]Lucy.n.tate (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444999/trump-deportation-policy-obama-legal-illegal-immigration


Well, that's just one thing his critics can't accuse him of being too lenient about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.180.228 (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Spam

There is a lot of spamming here. What is "landmark legislation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B300:C700:7D7E:F60A:1C4E:7706 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Landmark in the sense "A major, important event." That said, the lead-sentence "During his first two years in office, Obama signed more landmark legislation than any Democratic president since LBJ's Great Society." might not have any coverage/source in the article, but I haven´t actually checked. If true/sourced, it seems a reasonable thing to mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Columbia graduation disputed?

This link [4] says that his classmates from the same 1983 class with the same major don't remember seeing Barack Obama in their class. Is there an independent proof of his Columbia graduation? Yurivict (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

We are going to need more than a single source to even remotely consider this.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, because The Blaze doesn't have a birtherist conspiracy to push at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.193.234 (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes of course, because at a university with over 23,000 students, divided among 200 of fields of study, taking classes in 800 different rooms, you found someone who didn't see him! I'll go with Columbia's official records on this one. --Bridgecross (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Expertise of editors here needed on Donald Trump article

I've been studying this article and going back over edits and how the editors here made decisions for inclusion and exclusion of material, and it appears you are very skilled at spotting what belongs, what weight to give it, and what to leave off. I realize that some of you may not be POV inclined to edit Donald Trump, but this is a BLP, this is a presidential BLP, and right now you are the most experienced editors in that area. I have every confidence that you would edit to NPOV and would very much appreciate your input there. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but life's too short for me to expend any time on that article. I've worked on all manner of political BLPs, from Hillary to Palin and much in between, but this is a bridge too far. Sorry. I do hope you are able to get a cadre of experienced editors who will.Tvoz/talk 07:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand, but perhaps you could offer some suggestions at some point down the road? At the end of the day, it is a Wikipedia article and not someone's personal property, although, at the moment it does seem like somebody else owns it. I'm sure it must have seemed like that when this article for President Obama was first started, but look at it now. That's your work, along with the others, that got it there. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I have a question for editors here, if you don't mind. Did you find things like the lead stabilized eventually and discussion subsided, or were people always trying to overturn the consensus? Siuenti (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I wondered that also, so I went through the history one year at a time, and then just clicked on any random December date, and then looked at the lede. He varied slightly but not too much. I don't know why the lede can't stabilize over on DT, but I suspect it's because there is not enough newer editors. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Simplify the hatnote?

How would it be if the hatnote just said:

For other uses, see Barack (disambiguation) and Obama (disambiguation).

instead of

"Barack" and "Obama" redirect here. For other uses, see Barack (disambiguation) and Obama (disambiguation)."

Who is benefiting from the first part? Siuenti (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

redirect from barack obama

I don't like the redirect from barack obama because if it wasn't there, it would be silently redirected anyway and I wouldn't have to see "(Redirected from Barack obama)" which is a piece of information about which no-one could care any less. I kinda nominated it for deletion here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Barack_obama, but the tag is not there right now for obvious reasons. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New books about

WaPo writes about two books that might be decent sources for this article. [5]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

Jazmynacostaa (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

birthday October 31, 1945

Not done: If you mean to suggest that that is Obama's birthday and that we should change the article, no that is not his birthday. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to Osama bin Laden at RfD

Just to notify that both redirects, Obama bin Laden and Obama Bin Laden, are discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 4#Obama Bin Laden, where I invite you to join. --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Barack Obama's age is incorrectly stated as 55 years old in the profile box on the right hand side of the page, but born in 1961. 1961-2017=56.

Barack Obama's age is incorrectly stated as 55 years old in the profile box on the right hand side of the page, but born in 1961. 1961-2017=56.

Not until August 4th, his birthday. Until then, he is still 55 years old. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Organizing for Action link

Should the Organizing for Action link be included in the infobox? Since the infobox is for his personal websites, and not groups or PACs he is affiliated with. (For example, Trump's page does not have a link to the Trump Organization) Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Obama post-presidency costs

http://nypost.com/2017/09/01/obamas-the-most-expensive-ex-president-for-taxpayers/

Article states 1,153,000 dollars will be shelled for his expenses in 2018 and his office will cost 536,000 dollars compared to Bush's 497,000 and Clinton's 518,000.

Should this be included in the post-presidency section. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be a hysterics-of-the-moment story only pumped up by the likes of the Post, Fox, Newsmax, and the Washington Times. Not a mainstream news story, not worthy of inclusion. TheValeyard (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with TheValeyard. The sources are suspect - known for sensationalizing and not considered Reliable Sources. These numbers basically mean nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

In the list of what Obama's done in the bit before the page contents box, there is "initiated sanctions against Russia following the invasion in Ukraine and again after Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections." Here, "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" is not one hyperlink, but two. "Russian" is one hyperlink, and "interference in the 2016 United States elections" is another. They both link to the same page. Please make them one hyperlink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:4380:6F41:2147:F784:D0EB:7139 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"First" or "only"?

This issue has been settled; "first" is correct. --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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.

Someone has been changing "first African-American president" to "only African-American president" at this and several other articles. They claim in their edit summaries that there can't be a "first" until there is a "second". I am creating this section so they can explain their rationale and we can discuss it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course there can be a first without a second, and we don't engage in prediction which "only" suggests. See WP:CRYSTAL. Hillary CLinton would have been the first female president, and we would not refer to her as "only" - the fact of being the first is notable in and of itself. Tvoz/talk 02:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That editor went from trying to justify it on a "there has to be another one", and then to something about royalty and I, II, etc...titles. Odd. ValarianB (talk)
@Tvoz: To me it appears the other way around. First suggests to me that we think their is another, and therefore that would be WP:crystal. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Definition of first is coming before all others in time or order; earliest; that means that until there's a second its not coming before all others in time or order and it's not earliest because there is nothing afterward once there is more than one then the one which came before is first. As in Genesis 1:5 And there was evening and there was morning, one day. It was only in Genesis 1:8 And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. why was the first called one day and not the first day because at the time there being only one day it was just the one day when there was a second day it became part of an order of days so was called a second day instead of two days AmYisroelChai (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

About "Genesis", just to point out: I don't know what translation you are using, but most translations say "and there was evening and there was morning, the first day."[6] --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
No. First simply means it has not happened before. Even if there is NEVER another, the first is still the first. "First" leaves open the possibility that there will be others (which only does not), but does not require that there be. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm using the original Hebrew and there was evening and there was morning one day as אֶחָד echad translates as one, in Hebrew the word for first is רִאשׁוֹן rishon AmYisroelChai (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

And instead of just our opinions, let's look at what sources say.
  • "Obama" "first African-American president" : 397,000 Google hits
  • "Obama" "only African-American president" : 42,000 Google hits.
Clearly "first" is the preferred term. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
"First" is appropriate here. "Only" may be the preference and POV of the editor making the change, but that is not our concern here (nor is the biblical meaning of "first" – we are editing the English encyclopedia). General Ization Talk 15:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
What certain translations of the bible say or do not say is getting a little tangential. The notion that usage of the word "first" is dependent on the existence of subsequent instances is so contrary to the English usage of the word that this discussion shouldn't need to take place. If "AmYisroelChai" is not a native speaker of English, perhaps I can understand the confusion here, but now that it is explained, that should be the end of it. ValarianB (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because people don't use proper English doesn't change the fact that first means first of many and not when there is only one.I don't actually care one way or the other.AmYisroelChai (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No - there is nothing whatsoever in "first" that suggests first of many. You're defeating your own argument. Do you think you can't say "first" if there are only two? Really, this is not correct -it is not normal American English usage, and as MelanieN points out, sources overwhelmingly use "first". Do you think George Washington, in his day, was called the "only" American president? Tvoz/talk 21:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

he was just called the PresidentAmYisroelChai (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to support AmYisroelChai's position let's just drop this semantics discussion. No one is supporting this other than AmYisroelChai, and I believe the change has been removed twice from each of Barack Obama, List of African-American United States presidential and vice presidential candidates, and List of African-American United States Senators. He was the first. He is currently also the only, the last, and the most recent, but all three of those descriptions are subject to change. Meters (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, let's quote a dictionary before we’re done. New Oxford American Dictionary: "First: never previously done or occurring". There's no question: there can be a first without a second. - Nunh-huh 00:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation Errors

Hi there, I am a student doing an assignment on finding errors on Wikipedia pages. While reading your article, I realized that you did not properly cite the second paragraph in your article.

I also found that the third paragraph in your article is not properly cited. --Nums01 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nums01, and thanks for your observation. You are right of course, that those paragraphs are not cited. That's because they are part of the lead section (also called the lede). Our policy is that the lead section should briefly summarize the content of the article, with most of the details and references beinb given in the body of the article text rather than the lead. But thanks for being alert to this kind of thing, and if you find other errors in this article, please let us know here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017

There are racial errors and but mostly just the latter. 1 Anonymous 1 (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. General Ization Talk 22:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@1 Anonymous 1: I'm not sure what 'racial errors' means but your concern may be covered in the FAQ section at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Funny nicknames and drove the former president of the United States. Appeared in the international press.

The topic can be interesting. But, it is necessary to qualitatively edit it. Here, for example. President of Russia German-speaking press calls "Skrutin." And, the Dutch-language press "Poutin".Klaus Brinkmäuer (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you suggesting for something to be added to this article about Barack Obama? --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

??? 63.92.233.233 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017

116.255.35.4 (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017

Please add in Barack Obama#Religious views in an apt location with few fixes - Obama carries totems along with him in his pocket, which include rosary beads given to him by Pope Francis, a statue of Gautama Buddha, a silver poker chip, a figurine of the Hindu god Hanuman, and a Coptic cross from Ethiopia. He has stated that he seeks inspiration from these totems when he feels tired or discouraged.[1] 2.51.17.85 (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Revealed: Obama always carries Hanuman statuette in pocket". The Hindu. 16 January 2016.
There is nothing in the source to suggest he carries any of those things because of his religious views. ~ GB fan 13:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan: Those are objects of religious significance. We are not making any connection by including the statement in the article. Also, source does mention totem, which according to the Cambridge Dictionary means "​an object that is respected by a group of people, especially for religious reasons." 2.51.17.85 (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The Hindu as a source is highly variable; in my experience it often gets its facts wrong. In this case, I see two objections to including the information. First, the notion that he carries all that bulky stuff around in the pockets of his neatly tailored suits is inherently unlikely - almost unbelievable on its face. The other is that even in the unlikely event that he does, it says nothing about his religious feelings. Example: There is a plaque on the front of my house paying tribute, in Portuguese, to Our Lady of Fatima. I am neither Portuguese nor Catholic, but I keep the plaque there in tribute to the former owners of the house. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The Hindu is quoting BBC's interview here. If not religious views, something like "Obama claims that he carries around... to seek inspiration when he feels tired or discouraged" in an appropriate section, though I feel it can be included in religious views as the Hindu article quotes Obama as saying "although I am not a highly superstitious person, I carry these around to seek inspiration.. " etc. 2.51.17.85 (talk)
Yes, in the interim I did some searching and found the interview and other reporting on it. The Hindu was right about the stuff in his pockets but wrong about its significance. According to Obama in the interview, he occasionally carries such items in his pocket as a reminder of the people he's met and the stories he's heard. He said he has a bowlful of items people have given him, from which he'll choose a few items to carry that day. And actually the interviewer had asked him to bring some personal items with him to the interview, so there's no way to know whether he does this habitually or just once in a while - or even just this once because the interviewer asked for it. In any case, the items he showed a) are not something he carries all the time and b) have personal but not religious significance to him. [7] --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
In that case, can it be mentioned that these objects have personal significance to him using te sources you mentioned ? 2.51.17.85 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
You have my opinion: this is a minor thing mentioned in one interview, not significant enough to include. But I'm changing this editing request back to "not answered" so that we can get other people's opinions. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
It's trivia, like favorite meals or the color of his comfiest socks. TheValeyard (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 Not done I concur - it is trivia and does not merit inclusion - I've re-marked it as answered - Arjayay (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2017

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In one of the final sections of the page, under "Legacy," it discusses that he finished his second term with an approval rating of 60%. This is highly misleading considering his two administrations were spent, primarily, in the high 40's. Please increase the validity and accuracy of the paragraph to reflect an accurate legacy and documentation of history. Thank you! Jewishownership (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please make specific request for changes when using this template. Preferably in the form "Change XXXXX to YYYYY" along with reliable sources to support this information. ~ GB fan 11:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I would say that I don't see how it is misleading to state that he finished his term with whatever his final approval rating was, especially at the end of the article. The rest of the article should(if it doesn't already) go into changes in his approval(or at Presidency of Barack Obama). 331dot (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2017

Seoking180 (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Seoking180: Blank edit requests are not accepted. Please state the change you would like to see, in the format of "change X to Y". 331dot (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

II vs. Jr.

If his father bore the same name, let alone the suffix of Sr., shouldn't we show Obama's name as Obama Jr., not Obama II? The "II" suffix would only be appropriate where someone is the namesake of anyone other than his father. Like, if Barack's grandfather was also named Barack Hussein, then Obama would be suffixed with 'II'. But, his father was named Barack Hussein, his legal name was Barack H. Obama Sr. So why isn't Obama's name shown as "Jr.", which would be his actual legal name? יבריב (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@יבריב: Please see the FAQ at the top of this page that addresses this matter; but also, his birth certificate specifically states "II". 331dot (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
His legal name is "Barack Hussein Obama II"[8] --Hazhk (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2017

Jkessler6 (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jkessler6: Blank edit requests are not accepted. Please describe the change you want to make, in the format of "Change X to Y". 331dot (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not even in the ballpark of notability for Obama's biography.

This is getting to the point of not even discussing the article but a discussion of editors. This article talk page is not the place to discuss editors. If you want to discuss the content do it in a new section without talking about other editors. ~ GB fan 11:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

Because one user (a certain @TheValeyard:) determines something is not notable, it must be so. At least this one came up with an original line. Informant16 December 11, 2017

It would be better to focus on suggested changes. The diff added text:
Obama recorded a robo-call endorsing Doug Jones in the December 12, 2017 United States Senate special election in Alabama.
There is no reason to record tiny details like that, at least, not unless secondary sources show how they are significant. Imagine the size of this already large article if everything that could be said were included. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It noted his involvement in the sole senate race of this year. An earlier addition had to do with his endorsement of Macron and for some reason that stayed up. But you are right on the article size. It's not like we could somehow, unceremoniously split his post-presidency if it ever became too large. What fiction would that be. Informant16 December 11, 2017
Yes, I did. That a former Democratic president endorsed the Democratic nominee is a Senate race is not notable to the President, it is rather routine and trivial. If the Doug Jones has an Endorsements section, it may be worth a mention there, but that is all. And I'll tell ya what...I'll come up with an "original line" when you learn how to use an edit summary. TheValeyard (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
That's an opinion, but okay. If it were routine, I would think there would be multiple examples of him doing this, but I know this is how the justifications for rolling back actual information occur. You make up some reason that's stated nowhere and get a coterie of users to nod their heads in agreement. An edit summary wouldn't have stopped you from reverting my edit, either the first time or if I were to have reinstated it. The "I'll come up with" has already been done. Let the expunging proceed. Informant16 December 11, 2017
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/4/white-house-wont-reveal-obamas-robocalls/ He records robocalls for many. Unimportant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
My comments were geared toward those he had done out of office, which was why it was added to the post-presidency section, leading the pulling of a random article from three years ago with short sentences to become a futile effort. And really what is that supposed to do? You're not changing my mind or making this make any more sense to those who already agree with you. The edit has already been reverted and I'm not getting accused of edit warring for trying to add content by attempting to put it back. Case closed. Persist with the expunging. Informant16 December 11, 2017
Yes, you figured me out, I summoned everyone with my Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Ring. The reason for removal ("it is trivial and unimportant") has been stated by myself and several others. That you disagree is duly noted. TheValeyard (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
You don't need a ring to form a cabal of people who've predetermined to reach the same consensus, and I still don't understand where knowing how to use an edit summary would have changed anything. I guess this means some of the leadership of Wikipedia leaves comments that don't have to do with the subject, i.e. citing the need for an edit summary on an edit that was determined "no good" without one being needed for such a conclusion to be made. I also never heard of "several others" being two people. Informant16 December 11, 2017
I made an edit and...other people agreed with it. Are we done here? Btw, a proper signature is 4 tildes. None of your posts have timestamps. TheValeyard (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not been involved in this but at the present time, TheValeyard is right. This is the biography of a person's whole life and as such we need to make choices about what goes in or not - what items have an impact on the subject's life or are emblematic of him or her etc. Right now this robocall doesn't rise to that level. If its impact changes, then we would include it. Just because something happened and can be sourced does not make it notable enough for inclusion - we need this to be comprehensive but also accessible to our readers, and if the piece gets too long and bogged down in minute details it ceases to be useful. This is so far from the first time this has been explained to you - we've had numerous rounds on other articles as well and you don't want to get the point. And frankly your disparaging comments directed at editors who work hard here to keep our articles in good shape is at best unfortunate but also a pattern on your part. There's no "coterie" or "cabal" or predetermining consensus and it's insulting to suggest that. As for edit summaries, it's simple courtesy to other editors to indicate why you're making changes and to help others navigate their sometimes very long watchlists. Why is that hard for you to do? And finally, splitting off a section is not a good solution, because people don't read forks. Look at page view stats. Tvoz/talk 04:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I never stated that everything that could be sourced must be included and I apparently have remembered enough from those rounds to not try "edit warring", but me mentioning that doesn't fit your narrative of my supposed refusal to get the point and constant annoyance to the "editors who work hard here", which is ironic when said to the user who adds about the ones who delete. It was frankly disparaging and insulting to have a user claim I needed to learn how to leave an edit summary, which again, wouldn't have stopped the revert of my edit. It was also frankly disparaging and insulting for you to imply that I was paranoid earlier this year, but I swallowed it and accepted that you hate me for my attempts at contributing and defense of those contributions. Informant16 December 11, 2017
Oh for heaven's sake, that again? I don't hate you. I have no feelings about you whatsoever, and I'm afraid your suggesting that my comments are a result of "hating" you does sound paranoid. I'm glad to know you're not edit warring - as I said, I haven't followed this particular brouhaha so don't know who did what. I am commenting on what I read here on talk. And edit summaries on article edits are common courtesy. Tvoz/talk 07:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"American politician"

Is it really necessary to state the obvious that Obama "is an American politician"? The lede at Calvin Coolidge (also a featured article) serves a more straightforward introduction:

  • John Calvin Coolidge Jr. (/ˈkuːlɪdʒ/; July 4, 1872 – January 5, 1933) was the 30th President of the United States (1923–29).

The fact that Obama is an American is stated later in the same paragraph, i.e. The first African American to assume the presidency. Either introductory sentence below should suffice:

  1. Barack Hussein Obama II (/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ⓘ; born August 4, 1961) served as the 44th President of the United States from 2009 to 2017.
  2. Barack Hussein Obama II (/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ⓘ; born August 4, 1961) was the 44th President of the United States (2009–17).

As the past tense might suggest that Obama is no longer alive, I would prefer option #1.--Nevé–selbert 00:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Neve-selbert I've BOLDly  Implemented #1. Agree, that doesn't add anything. Being an american politician is obvious from being an american president, and it doesn't add any information. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree on the issues with 'was', which is used elsewhere in the lede. Other than not including a death date, nothing explicitly states he's still alive. So in that same spirit of boldness I've changed the second "served" in the lede to "has served", to make his present-tense-ness explicit without making a big deal of it.DewiMorgan (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I just changed the "has served" to "served" without checking here first. My thinking is that while "was" in the opening sentence usually applies to a dead person by WP convention, there's no such issue with using plain ol' was for past events elsewhere in BLPs. I think we have already seen that trying to avoid "was" elsewhere does introduce some awkwardness, but I won't fight about it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
That's fine! I fully agree with your revert reason ("is alive, but his state leg service is wholly in the past"). I'd inadvertently introduced ambiguity there, in trying to remove it, and I'm glad you caught that! And I agree on the awkwardness: the "has" just made that line read in a more cumbersome way anyhow. It also tickles me slightly that I'm not alone in thinking far too deeply about such tiny nuances of meaning :) DewiMorgan (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the American politician statement should stay for consistency with other presidential articles. See Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. CatcherStorm talk 04:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Concur with CatcherStorm. This is how most articles on recent presidents are done. (The rationale is: politician is what he IS, similar to physician or writer or musician or academic. President is a title he held at one time in his life; it's not who he IS.) I'm going to put it back the way it was, pending discussion. We don't change the lede on highly visible articles like this without getting consensus first. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Overlinked start

The start of this article seems to be a bit WP:OVERLINKed to me. I feel like removing some of the excessive links might improve the article. (I am not WP:BOLD enough when it comes to featured articles to change it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username Needed (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Making Obama?

Any opinions on my adding Making Obama to the article as an external link? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2018

Iran: Obama provided billions of dollars to the #1 state sponsor of terrorism under the cover of dark at a airplane hanger in Iran. Although he indicated that he was merely returning THEIR money from a previous hold put on by the US government. It was later found out in 2018 that these funds were actually traced and purported to be used by the Iranian government for the funding of 75.147.68.213 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)terror groups. 75.147.68.213 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

See also section

Can this please be trimmed of duplicate articles already covered in the body of the article? --Malerooster (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

POTUS article link

When defining Obama by the highest office he has held, how is it more useful to link to a list (List of Presidents of the United States) than to the article about the office itself (President of the United States)? Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

In the lead, the statement "[Obama] served as the 44th President of the United States" is linked to List of Presidents of the United States because it describes his place among the list of US presidents. It's a short hop from there (or from the link in the infobox) to President of the United States. General Ization Talk 21:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It could be formatted like 44th President of the United States. AdA&D ★ 21:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
It could, but if you look at the leads of other articles concerning US Presidents you will see that that is not our practice here. General Ization Talk 21:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Having looked at a few other of the articles, it's actually not as uncommon as I thought, and in many cases the ordinal is not linked at all. So feel free if you think it improves the article. General Ization Talk 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Some of the recent president article were changed recently, by this same editor. They have the same problem, of being linked to the POTUS article numerous times. Every presidential infobox already has a direct link to the POTUS article, so if anything the several this editor changed should also be changed back. Dave Dial (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
My point is that it is far more useful to provide a link to the article about the office than to describe the subject's place among US presidents. Surely the role of the President of the United Status is more relevant to the lead sentence of this article than the names of 19th century presidents. And of course, a common practice is not necessarily the optimal practice, right? Surtsicna (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The POTUS link is already in the infobox, it doesn't need to be linked to again in the Lede, the 44th president of the USA is linked to the list of presidents because that is what it is describing. We don't need two links to the POTUS article in the whole Obama article, much less right at the top of the page. Dave Dial (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Add, if you can't see where the POTUS link is, look right under Obama's picture at the caption(44th President of the United States). Dave Dial (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
According to MOS:REPEATLINK, whether a link appears in an infobox is not really relevant to whether it should appear in the lead or elsewhere. But that aside, would it not make much more sense to link to the office in the lead sentence and to the list in the infobox and succession boxes? The infobox and the succession boxes list his predecessor and successor, as well as the full dates of his presidency term, which is what the list is about. Surtsicna (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. It makes sense to link to the list of Presidents when describing the person as the 44th, 45th or 36th POTUS. You've also changed the Ronald Reagan article in the same manner. The articles of all the presidents have been uniform for some time. While I'm not going to go around correcting the mistakes you've made, you need to stop taking it upon yourself to make these changes. There have been RfCs and discussions about these types of uniformity. You should not go around taking unilateral action because you like things a certain way. Dave Dial (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The infobox and the succession box also describe Obama as the "44th President of the United States", yet they do not link to the list. Your original argument that the infobox and the lead should not feature the same link (while itself inconsistent with MOS:REPEATLINK) is now at odds with this argument. And would you kindly provide a link to the RfCs about which of these articles should be linked? Thanks in advance, Dave Dial. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
No Surtsicna, as I am busy right now. But I have seen that you've removed the link to the List of Presidents of the United States from every article of former presidents, as well as lists to all the other offices they have held. Without any consensus or reason. Your edit summary(in most cases) states "simplifying links per WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN;", which is a misleading edit summary as to what you've done. I suggest you go back and change the articles back to where they were before you took it upon yourself to remove all mention of the "List of" articles. There was absolutely no reason for those changes other than the fact you wanted to do it. All already had at least one link to the POTUS article already. This is a disruption to Wikipedia and pure aesthetics for no other reason. Dave Dial (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully, no. I have explained my reasons here in detail. When mentioning the office, the link should lead to the article about the office. When it's a succession box, the link should lead to the list of officeholders. It's common sense. Besides, even pure aesthetics are hardly a disruption to Wikipedia. You have so far rejected General Ization's very reasonable compromise as well as my suggestion to swap the links between the infobox and the lead sentence. Then you refused to explain the glaring contradiction between your rejections of my two proposals. This makes me think that you are not willing to cooperate at all. As for the supposed RfCs: not only is this a ridiculous thing to discuss with such formality, but your refusal to provide a link makes me very disinclined to believe that they ever took place. I do not understand why you would make that up, though. Surtsicna (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Well Surtsicna, you made the changes. I changed them back. FYI, 90% of the first 30 presidents all had the List of Presidents of the United States link right where they all had them before you changed them. So it's incumbent on you to get consensus for the change, not me. As for the RfC, I didn't make it up, I remember some damn RfC about the ledes of the presidential articles and wikilinks, but it was years ago. So finding it may be more trouble than it's worth. Since the cycle has already begun. We can come to some kind of consensus here for this article, but it would be better to have wider participation to make broader changes to all of the articles. Also, it was editor AdA&D that made the suggestion. I don't have a problem with that suggestion, I just wanted to make sure the articles match. Dave Dial (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: Your implication that another editor is lying about their belief in the existence of one or more RfCs just because they are unable to provide you with links (which you could just as easily research as they could) represents a violation of assume good faith as well as a borderline personal attack. Given your editing history, I'm surprised and disappointed. I suggest you think before you type (always a good idea). General Ization Talk 23:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
A change away from a practice commonly employed in a large set of related articles should only be implemented after discussion among editors who have an interest in the entire set, rather than on the Talk page of only one article in the set. A logical place to have this discussion would be at... wait for it... Talk:List of Presidents of the United States. General Ization Talk 23:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

smoking struggle - edit request

How come there is no mention about how Obama has struggled with smoking? According to him, he has now quit but I still think it is worth mentioning that he used to smoke and that his brand of choice was 'marlboro reds' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.143.143 (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a line about it in the "Family and Personal Life" section already. The specific brand he smoked is trivia though, and should not be added. TheValeyard (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Presidential rankings

I moved the paragraph from the lede into the post-presidency section. If someone wants to add a sentence in the lede, that would be good too. No reference is necessary, since it's already sourced at least twice in the article already. Something like, "In presidential polling of experts, Obama has ranked among the best, rising into the top 10 in 2018." Dave Dial (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Dodd-Frank Edit Request

Hello,

I noticed that there are only two mentions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act of 2010 in the entire article. There is one passing mention in the opening paragraph, and one more general sentence under Legacy. Meanwhile, there are six mentions of the Affordable Care Act (including a six paragraph subsection about healthcare reform under Domestic Policy). I would definitely consider the Dodd-Frank act to be a very important part of Obama's Presidency.


Do we think it would be a good idea to add a subsection under Domestic Policy and expand on Dodd-Frank a bit more? There is no mention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was created by this act, consolidating regulatory agencies, the FDIC's new tools to wind down banks, expanding Federal Reserve authority to regulate non-bank financial institutions, and the Volcker Rule.

Even if it's just a few sentences, I think it's important that it should be included.


Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:C302:71A6:198E:12BE:323C:B715 (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018

5.103.38.5 (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Zingarese (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2018

Hey guys it's Tswagbihhhh here and I truly believe I could help this article. I actually lived with Barack for a while. He's a really nice dude and I think I could capture that through my words. I am a Harvard grad and now work on for Google as a head dev. Please take my request into consideration. Tswagbihhhh (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Zingarese (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Accuracy: Change "...first black..." to "...first mixed-race..."

In keeping with Wikipedia's standards for accuracy and transparency, this article's references to "...first black..." need to be replaced with "...first mixed-race...". It may be beneficial to distinguish between factual references to "...first mixed-race..." and Pres. Obama's self-identification as African-American—the former is factual whereas the latter is subjective.
(See Wikipedia's "Multiracial_Americans" article for "In 2008 Barack Obama was elected as the first biracial President of the United States..." consistency check.)
WizGeek (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@WizGeek: Please see the frequently asked questions section at the top of this page for why he is identified as he is. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Caption in infobox photo

Koavf has added a caption to the infobox citing "We should have captions for photos--they provide necessary context. since no one looks identical all the time". We don't do this for other presidents (with the exception of a few others for whatever reason), there is no consensus for a caption here, and it is simply not needed. Do others think we need an unneeded caption for his official portrait in the infobox? Corky 18:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Your question is bad faith by poisoning the well: "Do we need unnecessary things?" Obviously, by definition we don't. Photos should have captions--that isn't controversial. Why would most presidents be different? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
That's your opinion... I don't believe photos need captions. I have no idea why the some of the other presidents don't have a caption, nor do I care why. It is common sense that they won't look identical to their time in office once they've left. With that being said, are you saying that all 45 presidents need to have a caption? Corky 03:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a poor question to say "Are you saying that all 45 presidents need to have a caption?" immediately after Koavf explicitly said that by definition it's not needed. That being said, captions are benign and helpful as they provide context for the reader. As a reader, I do find it helpful to have a caption including the date of the photo; otherwise, it would be difficult for the reader to know whether the image in the infobox was from his first term after the 08 election or the second term after the 2012 election (in this case, it is an image from December 2012 - after his reelection but before being sworn in to his second term). Though some may consider arguments such as "we don't do this for other presidents" to be a WP:OSE argument, I do see the validity in citing an established practice, but I also believe it would be for the best to deviate from this slightly to provide the reader with more information in the infobox. As a final and very minor side point, in this instance especially I believe it would be of interest to readers as I remember hearing quite a lot of people point out that Obama aged very noticeably by the end of his presidency. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Captions are neither required nor prohibited. Here's what relevant sections of Manual of Style guidelines have to say:
  • MOS:CAPTION: In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone; but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait along with the name of the subject.
  • Captions#Infoboxes and leading images: An infobox image and, in the absence of an infobox, a photograph or other image in the article's lead section, serves to illustrate the topic of the article, as such, the caption should work singularly towards that purpose. Depending on the nature of the subject and the image used, the ideal caption can range from none at all to a regular full-sentence caption. The following examples serve to describe the range of situations for particular infobox images:
    • No caption — Infoboxes normally display the page name as the title of the infobox. If nothing more than the page name needs to be said about the image, then the caption should be omitted as being redundant with the title of the infobox.
    • Short caption — Infoboxes for things that change over time can mention the year of the image briefly, e.g. "Cosby in 2010" Bill Cosby. If the image is of a person doing that for which they are known at an otherwise common event, the correct verb delivers the message: "Jackson performs in 1988." Michael Jackson... While more detail could be added, consider carefully whether it might distract the reader from the subject of the article or inform the reader about the importance of the subject.
Given these guidelines, if there is local consensus discouraging a caption on presidential biographies, there is no need to impose one on this article. Readers wanting to know more about the photograph (e.g. date, location, author, etc.) need only click on it. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus afaict that discourages captions on presidential biographies per se. As such, as you point out, the guiding principle should be the MoS. As such, I agree with Brendon and Koavf that in this instance a caption makes sense because him looking far older now than he did in 2012 is something many sources have noted. Plus, mentioning the date the picture was taken allows users to specifically look for older or newer photos. That they can see the age when clicking the image is not a reason not to have a caption since many people don't actually know that. Regards SoWhy 10:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This should be treated as every presidential photo is treated. If there is no project-wide consensus, then there probably should be. As I went through the photos of every president in USA history, I only saw 2-3 that had captions. With 40+ without. So the consensus seems to be that the photos don't need captions, and all of the photos(that are photos) or portraits are of the person when they were president. I think it's self-explanatory that the pictures are of the person at the time of their presidency. So no caption necessary. Dave Dial (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Library

I think section needs updating as the center will not house the library. The library will be all digital and won't be at the center. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, not original research or opinion. If you have such sourcing for this assertion, please post it here on Talk. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 23:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

Add Photo here for FaceReco. It will insert PNG files or data into system will recognize owner. Without any photo the system is set for owner of Component Service it's a she 184.151.222.13 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your request is incomprehensible. Deli nk (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

72.180.12.78 (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Obama is no longer a lawyer, so "is a lawyer" is incorrect, he was a lawyer. He and Michelle both gave up the license to practice law.

Licensed or not, he is still a lawyer. A doctor or lawyer who retires and stops practicing, for example, still has their degree and is still a doctor or lawyer. [9] --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
That is true. Just look at Dr. Phil. :/ – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Higher Ground Productions

Higher Ground Productions, the name of a production company founded by Barack and Michelle Obama in May 2018, redirects to this article, but isn't currently mentioned anywhere in the article. My sense is that the company isn't currently significant enough to be mentioned in this article, so the redirect ought to be deleted, but before taking it to RfD I thought I'd ask here first to see if there's any consensus in favour of mentioning it. Sources include NPR, Vulture, MediaWeek, PJ Media, CBS. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Jewish heritage

Moved from Talk:Tvoz


On 09:26, 23 April 2018 you made an edit to the Barack Obama talk page and called me a troll, removing my suggestion entirely. I want an explanation! I recently found proof of Barack Obama's Jewish heritage. This page links the name Barack to Baruch, calling it a cognate. It is sponsored by Disney. I was lucky enough to find the page yesterday, months after the dispute which you began. https://www.babble.com/baby-names/baby-boy-names/meaning-of-barrak-boy/ 75.110.241.177 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The comment you made in April reads like trolling, as it had no support, context, or explanation. Barack Obama is not Jewish as you suggested nor does he have a "Jewish heritage" that has been reported in any book, article, or otherwise reliable source. The derivation of his name - his father's name actually - may be of interest to you, but it in no way gives him a Jewish heritage and it does not in any manner, shape, or form, belong in his biography without such reliable sourcing. I'm sorry if you were offended by my characterization of this as trolling, but I recommend that you study how things are done here a bit more if you want to be a productive editor. If you wish to discuss this further, please keep it here on the talk page of the article, not on my talk page. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 00:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
And by the way, I did give you an explanation in May. Tvoz/talk 00:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This kind of logic would mean that everyone called David has a Jewish heritage. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"A photo has emerged. . . ."

Yes? Of who, doing what to who?

A photo has emerged of then-Senator Obama standing with controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan during a 2005 Congressional Black Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill.

(Recently added.)

Seems a bit trivial to me. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The photo was kept from public view for years because of fear it would decrease Obama's chances of being elected. The current mention might seem trivial, but would seem less so if a brief summary of the photo's suppression were added. [10] - Nunh-huh 14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Still, seems too trivial to include it in the main article. Maybe in one of the many sub-articles, like Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories? Regards SoWhy 14:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on where it should be, I just wanted to elucidate it contextually. - Nunh-huh 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The sources seem ok, but if this is it, it seems undue to me. Placement would be Post-presidency (2017–present) or perhaps Public image of Barack Obama. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it would be appropriate in one of these sub-articles. -- Hoary (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, Post-presidency (2017–present) is a section here, though it could probably be expanded to an article if someone wants to do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

ø 184.151.222.70 (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Disputed birthplace category dispute

Seriously? There's a whole article about it: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, WP:ONEWAY does not apply, as it refers to content, not categories. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

This concerns diff which added Category:People whose birthplace is disputed (a category created on 24 August 2018). It's funny how Barack Obama#Early life and career says 'Obama was born on August 4, 1961,[5] at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii." Do you think that needs a [disputed] tag? I agree that categories are only of interest to a certain kind of editor and what they say is pretty irrelevant, but the fact that there is almost no mention of the conspiracy theories in the article indicates that the principle of WP:ONEWAY does apply. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I've started a CfD discussion that this newly-created Category should be renamed Category:Birthplace controversies to parallel Category:Age controversies. IMO the renamed Category could be added to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, but doesn't belong here on his main biography per WP:FRINGE.--Muzilon (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
You still don't get the crux of the matter. It's not about his birthplace, but about the vociferous minority that still believe something that is demonstrably false. As I stated before elsewhere, the Earth is not flat; that doesn't prevent us from having (lord help us all) Category:Flat Earth proponents or even Category:Flat Earther Wikipedians. I also disagree that WP:FRINGE applies here. This irrational belief was a significant factor in a presidential election. However, if the category gets renamed, then inclusion of the subarticle is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Bluntly, fuck them. We are not required to pander to their idiocy. There is no serious dispute about Obama's birthplace, and to include this category is an egregious violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:PARITY, WP:BLP and more. In the same way we would not include category:Objects of disputed geometry to Earth just because flat-earthers reject reality. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Guy Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
-- Great explanation, Guy. 100% agree with you regarding those guidelines. Teammm talk
email 17:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Guy too. His birthplace in fact is not disputed by any reliable and/or sane person. This category does not belong in the biography of his life. Tvoz/talk 00:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to note: there has been edit warring at the article, with the category being added three times (twice by User:Clarityfiend, who created the category just a few days ago). Now that it is under discussion here, and consensus seems to be trending toward not using it, it should NOT be added again unless this discussion takes the opposite turn. In any case the category may soon be deleted, see this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Guy, fuck 'em. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
FTR, the result of the Category discussion was to delete the Category altogether.--Muzilon (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Birth Certificate, (Redacted)

Why isn't this on his wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:B80:A90:DD6B:99E3:8F04:CC16 (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what criminal associations with the Clintons refers to, but the other thing sort of is. Scroll down in the article below the "External links" section. There you see a collapsed bit called "Barack Obama", expand it. Now you see more articles and a new collapsed bit called "Public image". Expand that and you find the article for BC and perhaps the other thing too.
If you check Donald Trump you'll see it has a similar arrangement. There's also other wikis, you may prefer [11]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
AGF is lovely but it would be wiser to remove this entire section per DENY. It's just trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Your may be right but it could be an honest question. Time will tell, or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
That said, how about having those two templates (Barack Obama/Public image) expanded as default? They are a bit invisible, and if they are expanded you can get hits with ctrl-f. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not an honest question. At any rate, the heading violates BLP for three living people! That is reason enough to delete this section. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I confess I did not consider that aspect of the heading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A horse was euthanized

This is probably the wrong talk page but it's a start. Somewhere on Wikipedia I'm sure there must be an appropriate place to mention a horse named Barack Obama. Perhaps the horse is not notable, but it seems that given his name, there must be someplace this could be mentioned.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

How odd, I have no idea where we would put info about a New Zealand horse named Barack Obama... From what I can tell the horse was not notable for winning or the like just the name. The only thing I could think of would be List of things named after Barack Obama maybe? That might be a stretch though since it is more scientific names for animals verse specific animals. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the list anyway. When I saw none of the competitors in the event (apparently) had their own articles I knew the event was not the place for it. The event was almost as big a deal as Hurricane Florence around here for a while and then the storm hit and it just became one of the many things disrupted by the storm.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

not in-office anymore 50.200.118.243 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What are you asking be changed? I do not see where it says he is still in office. ~ GB fan 15:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_81&oldid=1167008980"