Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Fussy little link in a ref: new section |
→Post-presidency 2: will nom for FAR if this isn't addressed |
||
| Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
:Or split off to a sub-article. It's likely to have stuff added. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC) |
:Or split off to a sub-article. It's likely to have stuff added. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
:At a glance, the "On May 16, 2020, Obama delivered..." text seems a little out of [[WP:PROPORTION]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC) |
:At a glance, the "On May 16, 2020, Obama delivered..." text seems a little out of [[WP:PROPORTION]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
::Just an FYI, I plan on nominating this for FAR if this isn't addressed. [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 20:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Infobox image == |
== Infobox image == |
||
Revision as of 20:37, 11 May 2021
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Frequently asked questions
Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?
A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [1], [2], [3] The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)?
A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it?
A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common?
A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc?
A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?
A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?
A7: Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "[c]riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article!
A8: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy.
A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?
A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?
A11: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this?
A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly?
A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed!
A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article.
A15: That's understandable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted!
A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:
Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail?
A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there. |
 | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 |
|
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2016, 2017 and 2020. |
| This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Post-presidency
Perhaps split off to a separate article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Description of Anwar al-Awlaki in lead
Hi Politicsfan4, let's discuss! I think describing Anwar al-Awlaki as "Yemeni" alone in the lead is misleading to the point of inaccuracy. Awlaki was born in the United States and held American citizenship his whole life. Not only that, but the reason Awlaki's killing is notable enough to be in the lead is because he was American - a number of other prominent Al-Qaeda guys were killed during Obama's tenure, but Awlaki stood out as a US citizen. That was the essence of the considerable controversy over his death. Describing him solely as Yemeni elides that important bit of history. I think "Yemeni-American" would be fine, but I think "American" is best - it doesn't matter what particular second nationality Awlaki was associated with, it matters that he an American suspected terrorist targeted for killing by the US government without trial. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- A secondary issue, which I've just noticed, is that the mention of Awlaki in the lead is his only mention in the article. Leads should reflect the body of the article, so we should add some content somewhere in the body about Awlaki, or else remove reference to him from the lead. I'm in favor of the former. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: On his main page, it describes him as "Yemeni-American" as well. Now that you have given more background, I'm honestly fine with anything - "Yemeni" or "American" is OK with me. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Politicsfan4, ok, sounds good! I'll change it to American for now, and if further consensus develops it can be changed again. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: On his main page, it describes him as "Yemeni-American" as well. Now that you have given more background, I'm honestly fine with anything - "Yemeni" or "American" is OK with me. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Anwar al-Awlaki should not be in the lead because he is not in the body, see WP:LEAD. Atm, I have no opinion on if he should be in the body, and even if that's reasonable, it's not certain he should be in the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Post-presidency 2
Does anyone else feel like the "Post-presidency" section has sprawled a bit and could use significant trimming? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Or split off to a sub-article. It's likely to have stuff added. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- At a glance, the "On May 16, 2020, Obama delivered..." text seems a little out of WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just an FYI, I plan on nominating this for FAR if this isn't addressed. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Infobox image
I would like to reconsider the image in the infobox for Obama. There is a similar discussion on Ronald Reagan's talk page here regarding changing the lead image for Reagan. The consensus there seems to favor the current image in the infobox which is his first term official portrait. I would like to know if using the current image which is his official portrait for his second term is still good to use or we should use his first term official portrait. The reason why I'm asking this is that the quality of the images is important to Wikipedia and according to the editors in the discussion I linked above, the older photo is a better quality image than the more recent image. So my question would be is recency important when deciding which photo to use? Interstellarity (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Images
-
First term portrait -
Second term portrait
Discussion
Pinging @Politicsfan4: for input about this discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Previous discussion at Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_82#Recent_change_of_leadimage. Pinging participants JohnuniqFireandblood02SundaycloseSean Stephens. It's rather subjective, my preference lands on the newer image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Second term image - I see no basis for the argument that one image is "better quality". They're both more than acceptable quality and official portraits, and we usually use the most recent image. I don't even know why we're having this discussion. The image in the Reagan article is irrelevant to the Obama article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Second term image: More centred and recent image. Regardless, both could be used in the article regardless of this consensus; whichever one isn't chosen for the infobox should be included within the relevant presidency subsection. (Thanks for the ping Gråbergs Gråa Sång!) Sean Stephens (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Second term image - This seems quite obvious to me. We should use the more recent photo in the infobox, especially since it is higher quality in terms of pixels. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Fussy little link in a ref
I can't figure out current footnote 124 in subsection 1.3.2: "University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney". The link to Gray, Steven (September 10, 2008). "Taking professor Obama's class". Time. Retrieved January 30, 2010. is dead, but I can't find the ref! (How annoying!) There's some kind of crazy abbreviated format that doesn't include the name of the author, the date, or the title of the article. Here's the link to the article if somebody who can navigate this format would please insert it into the ref: http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1835238,00.html
Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Biography articles of living people
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- FA-Class Hawaii articles
- Mid-importance Hawaii articles
- WikiProject Hawaii articles
- FA-Class Chicago articles
- Top-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- FA-Class African diaspora articles
- Mid-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- FA-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- FA-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- FA-Class Africa articles
- Mid-importance Africa articles
- FA-Class Kenya articles
- High-importance Kenya articles
- WikiProject Kenya articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- FA-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- FA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class District of Columbia articles
- High-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- FA-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- FA-Class U.S. Presidents articles
- Top-importance U.S. Presidents articles
- WikiProject U.S. Presidents articles
- FA-Class US State Legislatures articles
- Low-importance US State Legislatures articles
- WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
- FA-Class United States Government articles
- Top-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- United States articles used on portals
- WikiProject United States articles
- FA-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- FA-Class Columbia University articles
- High-importance Columbia University articles
- WikiProject Columbia University articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report