Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

Israel/Palestine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Hussein Obama II ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is nitpicking but...

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

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

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

Reorganization Suggestion

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

Barack Obama

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

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

Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

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

Scandals (Solyndra and Fast and Furious)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are these things "fringe criticisms"?

[redacted]

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

Barack Obama is not African-American

Just wanted to point out that Obama isn't African-American. African-American refers to the people whose descendants were traded in the slave trade, mostly in West Africa. His mother is white and born in the states. His father is black and was born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii. Obama has no claims to african-american heritage. Rather, he is Kenyan-American. He is black, but not african-american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.184.254 (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please look at Talk:Barack Obama#first african american president above. Surely we're not going to label people here according to perceived skin colour. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not our job to go against virtually all reliable sources have said and that is that he is African-American. Also do you have any reliable sources that only descendants of the slave trade are allowed be called African-American because if not your position would be considered original research and likely not be given much consideration especially since reliable sources have called him African-American.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that Kenya is an African country and that all immigrants to the USA from Kenya would indeed still be called African-American and their children would still be African-American even if half European-American? Alatari (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Also see Q2 on Barack Obama/FAQ.--JayJasper (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Obama's Civil Rights Law Practice

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

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

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

"Controversy" and "Criticism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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