Talk:Barack Obama

Economic policy

The article is very slanted and is not much different from advertising for him. Wikipedia should be neutral. The most common thing is to cherry pick, particularly on a claim of being "bipartisan" and use this in this article. The current authors should be fired for such a bad article.

One example (of many) is the slanted claim of helping the economy. The economy is shit. To blame him is partisan but having him take credit is partisan, too.

Try inserting that Obama claimed unemployment would be 9% if his plan was not passed. So they passed it and unemployment got worse. There are many sources for that.

Again, don't smear the guy but stop having a fluffy ad for him.

Absent a source, I cannot consider your proposal. However, I suspect that there are few if any reliable sources that would purport to say what the American unemployment numbers would have been had a different policy been taken. It would merely be a source that says a certain study, or expert, made that assertion. For every article that says that there are others, probably more, that say that the economic stimulus and other economic initiatives prevented the economy from getting worse that it did, and yet others that describe unemployment as a measurement that lags economic recovery. To report on all of these would give undue weight to differences of opinion among economists, although there may indeed be articles where this information is more appropriate, e.g. articles on the recent recession, or on the economic policies themselves. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

major problems

I find it very troubling that this article is being controlled by one faction of political supporters, rather than being neutral. Wikidemon already admits that "I cannot consider your proposal".

I disagree with both the original post and Wikidemon, so much so, that I must write a dissenting opinion.

The economic policy section does not belong in this article the way it is written. For several reasons. One, this is a biography, not a history of the nation during his presidency. Two, this is biased. It says that he helped the economy. The neutral way would not to make that assessment. See http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/unemployment-labor-market-jobs-opinions-columnists-thomas-f-cooley-peter-rupert.html This is opinion but it is also opinion when some people say the stimulus helped.

Let's be fair and neutral in this article. S9binator (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is troubling that you should make unfounded accusations against fellow Wikipedians, ignoring the policy of assuming good faith. Most economists agree that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act was chiefly responsible for preventing the economy from sinking into a catastrophic Depression, and a myriad reliable sources can be found to reference that. Economists are in general agreement that the small size of the stimulus package means it has not had the impact hoped for. Nobody capable of adding 2+2 thinks the package was a bad idea. The Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a pivotal piece of legislation for President Obama that most certainly has biographical relevance as part of the section on his presidency. Incidentally, "fair and neutral" sounds awfully familiar. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To further Scjessey's commont, it's rather silly to misrepresent another person's statement immediately below where it was made. As I said, I can't consider a proposal for how to characterize this in the article without a proposed source. That's not an admission of anything, that's just waiting for an explanation of how this would satisfy WP:V and some other policies. If someone wanted to add a statement like "Obama has a vacation home in Ohio" that's also what I would say, do you have a source for that? It's up to the person proposing to add content to justify that it's reliably sourced, and in this case I don't know of any reliable sources and I'm dubious that they exist in meaningful number. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with reliable sourcing. We can discuss here how we feel about the economy or how we believe most economists feel about the Recovery Act but it comes down to sourcing. Aside, it is unfounded to say here that those who view the Recovery Act as a bad idea can't do basic math. Jamming close to $900 billion into the economy (and elsewhere) will certainly and has given it a jolt but it still may or may not be sustained. So in the end, it may as well have been a bad idea if the economy gets worse and all the U.S. gets out of it is more debt. It might be hard to find good reliable sources to be the judge on that one right now. As far as the Recovery Act unemployment projection figures, the Act was obviously way too optimistic on employment. I am not surprised though (and I don't think commentators are too) to see that a piece of government legislation didn't meet its claim. With that, in my opinion, right now I don't see much significance for it here now in his bio and am neutral placing it elsewhere. If you can provide a source on economic analysis or figures that isn't included, updates or contradicts, do so.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to complete my thought and respond to your comment -- There is nothing wrong with government legislation as long it is executed properly. The problem with the Recovery and Reinvestment act was that it was only about 50% the size it should've been. This was in part due to the fact that the government underestimated the strength and depth of the economic woes, but it was also due to the partisan bickering in Congress that made sure it was a less effective bill. Award-winning economists (like Paul Krugman) said that the stimulus package needed to be well over a trillion dollars in order to do any good, but Democrats knew they'd never get any Republican votes for something of that size. Republicans, incredibly, simply wanted a package of tax cuts. And by continuously portraying the stimulus in a bad light they actually helped to reduce its effectiveness, since the economy depends so much on consumer confidence. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Subinator as far as the economic policy being in this article. This is an article about the man, not about American history 2009-present. The choice of topics is also biased. The economy is in terrible shape, far worse shape than under Bush. This is not to say the McCain would have done any better, but cherry picking positive things is very biased. Unemployment is far higher than Obama said it would be if his stimulus were NOT passed! (There's a reason for that; Obama is seen as highly anti-business so small business is being very cautious and not hiring but that shouldn't be in the article either because it is about economics, not Obama the man). France is the greatest (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

photo

Hatting inappropriate haberdashery diversion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An important photo of him is missing. That is the one where he is wearing a turban. A new section could be written to say talk about his Muslim problem and that he is not a Muslim but a Protestant. This is valid. But then again, campaign workers for Obama will think of every excuse to censor that photo. Make no mistake, I am not calling him a Muslim.12.40.50.1 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I have a photo or two of me wearing a kippah. It doesn't mean I'm Jewish. PhGustaf (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I have a photo of me wearing a condom on my head at a party. It doesn't mean I'm a dickhead. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC) (Actually, this is a complete falsehood. Anyone with a camera to help me remedy this?) Sorry, how can someone with a camera alter the truth of the statement It doesn't mean I'm a dickhead? :) Guettarda (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC) It cannot. But least I'd have a nice picture of me wearing a condom on my head to make my mother proud. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I found a picture of Robin Williams dressed as a woman. I'm not sure how that fits in. Let's delete this silly thread when we're done with it, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Several editors have continually removed my comments. If this is acceptable, then I will take it as a reason to remove others' comments. The controversy of Obama being a Muslim is a big issue. The truth is that he is not a Muslim and that there is nothing wrong with Islam. However, reporting of Obama being a Muslim is part of being comprehensive. When this is done, a possible picture to use is the turban picture. This does not prove he is a Muslim nor is it a crime to wear a turban. Millions of Sikhs wear turbans and they are certainly not Muslims. Obama follows the United Church of Christ religion. There is plenty of documentation of that. France is the greatest (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Article length FAQ

The #10 question in the FAQ talks about the article as it was on 22 June 2008. By now it is considerably outdated and the article is bigger than it was then. Would someone do a new check of the article and update the FAQ accordingly? Christopher Connor (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't his birth name, fist name, be included in the introduction?

Shouldn't the introduction somewhere include that his birth name, or first name is Barry Soetoro? I thought this was fairly well known in the mainstream community, and was suprised to discover it isn't even mentioned in the introductory paragraphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.111 (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't Barry Soetoro appear? Because it is conspiracy theory nonsense.

Obama's Faith

I ran across this article and thought it might be an appropriate source identifying Christianity as Obama's declared faith. It also mentions that he draws from Eastern religions, Islam, and Judaism. I hesitate to plop it into the article right away, though, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is from an interview with a notable journalist (Cathleen Falsani) in a notable publication (Chicago Sun Times), so it should be OK as a source for the article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a very good interview, and outlines what many have suspected Obama's beliefs were, put into writing with his own words. No particular dogma or exact 'brand' of Christianity, just Christian. I'm sure people who are religious/spiritual but have college degrees can relate. As for using it as a reliable source, I have no problem with it. Dave Dial (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the FAQ above, it would POV to not mention ANY muslim connection to his family roots. Granted he is christian, fair enough and it should be given greatest emphasis, but considering most of his [kenyan] family is Muslim that ought to be mention too.Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hair

Nothing about his hair changing colors? 71.255.94.205 (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

why would that be relevant? He's getting older. Duh. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For something of this nature to warrant a mention in this article, it would need to be extensively covered by mainstream media sources. Besides, haven't you noticed that all presidents suffer from this problem? Even fictional presidents do! -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Spouse dates in infobox

I don't work on a whole lot of biographies, but was surprised that after First Lady's name, it listed 1992-present. I checked Bush and Clinton - neither of them had dates for their spouses listed. Is it normal procedure to list the dates? If so, I guess we should modify Bush's and Clinton's articles to list their dates as well. --Habap (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this shows that this article is out of compliance and should be fixed. France is the greatest (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping that someone who is not currently banned can have a look at this and let me know if it makes sense to have that entry or not. --Habap (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would imagine it's unecessary to have 1992-present there, unless there is a divorce or something. I could see if there were previous marriages like Ronald Reagan(who I believe is America's first divorced President, although I could be wrong), but don't see a need otherwise. Dave Dial (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Polls

Just wondering: should we include a presidential job approval graph like other presidential articles have had?--Schwindtd (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Have other presidential articles had that? I just don't remember one for Bush and Clinton predates Wikipedia so I am guessing one was never added to his. If it was ever on Bush's article, it isn't now. I personally am not a fan because there are too many varying surveys that could be used and choosing what data to use and how to weight it would only lead to considerable conflict. However, if such a graph were to be used it certainly shouldn't be used here, it should be used in the article about his presidency. It doesn't make sense to put a graph of his approval ratings into his bio. I could see referencing it in the article if the generally acceptable numbers hit notable highs or lows at particular points. But that's just my thought on it.Jdlund (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

The links to the American Conservative Union's webpage that are supposed to have Obama's ratings are dead. I tried to add a template, but found it was locked, so I figured I'd post it here and editors who know more than I do can take it from here. 76.4.240.95 (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed em'. Thanks for pointing it out.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't his full ethnicity African-American/Caucasian be included?

Why isn't there anything in here about him being African-American and Caucasian? The terms denote ethnicity, not skin color, and so should both probably be included so as to not give a false impression, as we would write the same thing for someone of two African-American parents, but he is different and so we should use another term to portray that.

Inclusive, I also spoke to someone the other day that didn't even know President Obama was Caucasian and African-American, which wikipedia seems to be perpetuating by not saying at the beginning that he's African-American and Caucasian. He's equally both so we should include that. Otherwise you should just say he's the first dark-skinned president? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzup45 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you see Q2 in the FAQ at the top of this page? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Signing the closing of threads

I ask again that all editors sign their names when closing a thread here on the talk page. It's courteous and also enhances the historical record. Some of you have been really good about doing this, but please, everyone do this. Ikilled007 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama nao nasceu no Kenya??

Bom minha duvida eh essa, se ele eh um presidende afro-americano, pq eh que colocaram q ele nasceu em Honolulu Hawaii, que pertence aos EUA, sendo que ele mesmo diz em outras reportagens, inclusive postadas no youtube que ele nasceu no Kenya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.225.183 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You would be better off at pt:Talk:Barack Obama. But the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii and not Kenya is accepted by everyone except a select group of people. Grsz¹¹ 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find more information about this at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and in the FAQ sections at the top of this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Iraq"

I don't have an account and the page is locked. Someone want to remove the definite article "the" from the captioned picture in the "Iraq War" section? Not that we don't appreciate your contributions, Miss South Carolina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.31.108 (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Good eye. I've changed the caption. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cultural and political image" addition

This new addition[4] seems to go overboard in the strength of its claims ("without precedent in modern history" - what about Kennedy?), the laudatory tone, and WP:WEIGHT. It's also out of chronological sequence, and unsourced. We already have two paragraphs on the positive international opinion of Obama from his first year in office, so I don't think we need more. It might make a little sense to have an image to illustrate how Europeans or others think of him, but why this particular image by Jorge Rodriguez-Gerada? The person who added this is editing from a new single-purpose account that has done nothing but expand the article about the artist,[5] and add mention of him to this and three other articles.[6][7][8] Under the circumstances I think we should remove the whole thing from this and the other articles, and issue a WP:COI notice to the editor. Any thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like self (or atleast friendly) promotion to me. Axe it WD. Grsz¹¹ 16:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War

The article states, "On August 31, 2010, Obama announced that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq was over."

But this is not true.

On September 5, 2010, Associated Press reported, "Days after the U.S. officially ended combat operations and touted Iraq's ability to defend itself, American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people and wounded dozens."

On September 7, 2010, CNN reported, "An Iraqi soldier opened fire Tuesday on a group of U.S. soldiers in northern Iraq, killing two and wounding nine others, the U.S. military and the Iraqi military said."

The article should be corrected to reflect these facts.

71.182.189.126 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is correct that this is Obama's announcement. Given length constraints and the difficulty agreeing on things around here, it is not practical to update this parent article constantly to stay fresh with the news of the day. There is probably more room for that in the various articles about the war and about Obama's foreign policy. After some amount of time, say a few weeks from now when we know whether things are quiet or the skirmishes continue, we can look back and decide whether it's worth adding a parenthetical note that despite the announcement the fighting continued for a while (or got worse, or better, or whichever way it happens). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Hi Grundle. "The combat mission is over" means just that; what the troops were there for is at an end, and they can/will be withdrawn from the theatre of operations. That doesn't magically mean that hostilities end or that they will not defend themselves when attacked. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently, I was with some veterans of Operation Dragoon, who admitted surprise when told that their campaign ended on 15 Sep 44. One remarked, "Someone forgot to tell the Germans" who kept shooting at him. While Presidents, Generals and historians may make pronouncements about when something has ended, that doesn't mean people stop shooting.... --Habap (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Exeternl links

I dont know if this ahs been said, but WP:Consensus can change and WP:EL wikipedia is not a repository of links, so the lsit needs to be cut.

1. certainly dont need a whole list of bios, some can be cited in here (and if they can be then theres no need for EL's)
2. news articles dont need to be here, or if a link to a search fo obama 1-2 can suffice
3. in linewith the above, directories/news searches can be cut too (some 1-2 combined)
4. official sites re the links to have, so this seems good.Lihaas (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Article size

WP:Article size means this page is way too long and takes forever to load, now there already are split off pages, yet at least 2 section still go on for para's on end. A summation and a link to the main page is the point of a split so those 2 can be cut down to size somehow. ill leave it to the page monitors to decide, because this is "their baby" instead of fightingLihaas (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of article

This article seems to have WP:OWNERSHIP issues here with various editors promptly removing anything added they dont like. to cite this blatant ownership: [9] says added by "article by new editor" If he means that im a new editor them that is not true, if its to this article then that doesnt mean people are restricted from editing articles on wikipedia. this is an open encyclopaedia and furthermore he blindly reverted EVERYTHING in the edits which is ground for either pov or vandalism (take your pick).

[10] is written from an WP:RS with the clear caveat that he was accused not that he is or making an affirmation. the editor's own insecurities of an attack are more suited to a weblog.

Furthermore, when challenging the edit he has not mentioned a word here on talk. If this protecting page by some whitehouse staff members continues it needs to go for admin control.

i have also already posted above to discuss my edit BEFORE revert, yet Newross reverted the tags (in addition to EVERY other edit in between including the cleanup) without saying anything on talk

To explain then the other part of the sub-section merger, all the biographical data was put to a logical one section instead of being spread around the page. I just made it a seperate subsection as a reward of recognition to whoever editor took the time to write it. (maybe that was unwarranted too) (Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)).

I support the reversion made by Brothejr (diff) that you mentioned above. You (Lihaas) made some massive changes to the article by moving some sections and more. In the middle of those changes you introduced a paragraph starting 'He was accused of heading to the "dark side"...' which was correctly reverted because it was someone's opinion written as fact, and it used some inappropriate language (dark side?), and is undue. Re your comment about "admin control", please see the "This article has been placed on article probation" note in the header at the top of this page. Your complaints are unfounded. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to explain why your bold edits should prevail rather than the established version. If you are going to reply to yourself, please leave your original signature because it is confusing to see indented comments when they are all from the same person. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There are definitely overreactions to content in the article. Two issues though; it is a featured article and very controversial. The revert [11] removed SmackBot fixes and a bot-added link to the Aymaran Wikipedia as well. Difficult to revert the intermediate edits but better care should have been taken. The revert in [12] was from an opinion piece and cannot hold its own in a BLP. I don't consider you a new editor but Newross may have assumed you didn't know how controversial, BLP and featured articles are treated. It is always best to discuss edits here, particularly if they are large. As far as ownership, there is a group of editors that prowl the Obama and other liberal/conservative pages. Some look more like SPAs and others are legitimately around to help control the quality of articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article is actually not too long, so I have removed that tag. Article length is judged by "readable prose" as noted at WP:SIZE. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I will say that I agree that (11) was probably incorrect, but (12) was definitely correct. But I would suggest to you that if you are going to make edits on controversial articles that are on probation, you should be aware of the history of changes on the article and accept that your edits may be challenged. Especially if you sandwich edits like this in between what I consider article improvements, while also making bizarre accusations and diving in head first defending a banned sock puppet that has over 75 socks over the last month or so and has been adding the same tired bullshit over and over. You are going to meet resistance to your edits if you are going to come in making these kinds of edits. So I would suggest that instead of making sweeping changes to the article, and unfounded accusations on the talk page, you restart and take a more collaborative tone. Dave Dial (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the talk page section again per WP:DENY, and suggest we close down this one as well for the same reason. There is zero chance of any of this getting into the article in this manner. I already moved this discussion[[11]] to the talk page of the editor who asked the question to answer any question about socking or the history of the article. As fond as I am of the sock in question, taking his troll bait here will only encourage him. Aggressively demanding that we take the bait here is not good. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A question of Race

Hey all,

Quick policy question. I'm a little curious about what justifies Obama's inclusion into all the "African American" categories he's in. I mean technically, he is of "mixed race". Can someone point out to me the policy that covers this kind of thing? I'm sure this issue has been discussed ad infinitum, I'm just curious because it relates to seperate debate I'm having. Many thanks, NickCT (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

He is mixed race, but of course he is also African-American. No policy, just facts (WP:V, WP:RS). Grsz¹¹ 19:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems as though it would be frought with POV issues though. I mean, if he was 1/4 African-American would WP still call him "African American"? How about 1/8th? 1/16th?

Surely there has to be some policy guiding this..... I mean, I could find plenty RSs which point out that he's not purely African American, so I don't think (WP:V, WP:RS) are sufficient here. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "African American" speaks more to cultural/historical roots than to one's literal racial makeup. It's just a word that has become the preferred descriptor over "blacks" which in turn replaced "negro". Nothing more. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that clarifies things Tarc. Who's to say what someone's cultural/historical roots are? NickCT (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the FAQ question#2 at the top of this page for an explanation of the issue and a rationale for how it was decided for this page. Race is a socially constructed concept (with some biological and historical roots, obviously, but our conception of race is a social one). We follow the credible reliable sources on this, and the vast majority describe Obama as African-American. Those that mention his mixed heritage do not seem to consider it a conflict, and there are some extensive articles about the issue of how he can be both at the same time. Who knows how we would describe an American of 1/4 African ancestry? We can cross that bridge when we come to it, and no doubt we have in other articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm just going to have to live with that response. Somehow though WP:V & WP:RS don't feel like sufficient standards for race. As Wikidemon notes, race is a somewhat subjective "constructed concept". I wonder whether race should be treated like religion and sexual oreintation as in WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"I mean, if he was 1/4 African-American would WP still call him "African American"? How about 1/8th? 1/16th?" ... Wikipedia doesn't make these determinations, we simply reflect what is said in reliable sources, so yes, WP:V and WP:RS have everything to do with it. Grsz¹¹ 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone try to figure out what percentage "African" someone who looks African-American is, and then try to label them based on it. "Mixed race" is a concept that doesn't apply in the US. I've heard of it being used in South Africa or in Central America, since it refers to the mixing of Europeans and the native peoples, but the experience here is completely different. I'm betting that if you tried to say that anyone appearing to be African-American who had any white, Latino, Asian, native American or other non-African ancestors was "mixed race" and not "African-American", you'd slice the population so many ways, it would be meaningless. It's a silly idea to say he's not African-American, just as it would be silly to say I'm not Irish-American because only one of my great-grandparents is from Ireland. --Habap (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Spanish America under the Bourbons had 64 different terms for racial backgrounds when Mestizo, mulatto, zambo and white just didn't cut it. Grsz¹¹ 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: In most cities in the US he'd have trouble flagging down a taxi. PhGustaf (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)