Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

Race & categories

This article has been removed from the category "American Christians" and been placed in the "African-American Christians" category. I understand that the former category is the parent of the latter, but the appearance is that Wikipedia believes that Blacks need to be segregated from the other American Christians. I suggest leaving Black Americans, including President Obama, in the American Christians category even though they are also in their own Christian category. Alternatively, merge the African-American Christians category into the American Christians category. SMP0328. (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support merging the categories, but that's an issue for WP:CFD. They could just as easily decide that Category:American Christians should not be diffused, or make some other recommendation. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And as long as they remain separate, there is no need to put someone who is in Category:African-American Christians in American Christians. African-American Christians is a subcat of American Christians (and logically it should always be) so by definition anyone in African-American Christians is in American Christians. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed the merger of the subcategory into its parent. I have also made a broader merger proposal. SMP0328. (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Probable cause" on Obama birth certificate

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11004216-418/arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-unveils-obama-birth-certificate-probe.html

Arpaio on Thursday unveiled preliminary results of an investigation, conducted by members of his volunteer cold-case posse, into the authenticity of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, a controversy that has been widely debunked but which remains alive in the eyes of some conservatives.

At a news conference, Arpaio said the probe revealed that there was probable cause to believe Obama’s long-form birth certificate released by the White House in April is a computer-generated forgery. He also said the selective service card completed by Obama in 1980 in Hawaii also was most likely a forgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.204 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What of it? Editors of this page have repeatedly decided that this WP:FRINGE stuff isn't biographically significant to Obama, but there's an entire article devoted to the subject, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎, and a section there about Arpaio's participation. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, to think Joe Arpaio and his team would know a forgery but the CIA or FBI can't is silly. Common scene.SG²⁰⁹⁰ 19:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is ever proof or widespread coverage, then it should be in the article. Until then, it is a joke. Everyone can see the computer generated form is recent. Nobody says it is 50 years old. But in the 1960's, air travel was rare so Obama couldn't have jetted to Kenya and back. It's just silly. He was born in Hawaii. McCain was born in Panama. Afghandeaths (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Notre Dame: Honorary Degree

Alright, was the honorary degree given or taken back? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/us-usa-catholics-contraception-idUSTRE81F12620120216

Twillisjr (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything it that article that even implies that.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as his personal image, there are some terms that he brought into widespread use.

This is a good addition. Think hard. I can think of some of them. They include shellacking and teachable moment. Neither term was used until Obama used them. There are a few more.

There are also some events during his Presidency that are really not part of his biography. These should be trimmed. Anything that he was not a major proponent and waged a major public campaign for is potentially good material. The other stuff is not and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midemer (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Section mentioning the Death of Osama Bin Laden should be edited to just say that he announced the death and not orchestrated or anything to that effect. Our Fine Military killed Osama and not by the order of barrak. If any president deserves this in their Bio its George W. Bush. Since he originally ordered his acquisition. (Sirbiff10 (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC))

This is a good comment. Yet someone censored this and shoved it to the archives. If I was not curious, it would remain there. I am copying it here.

I fully agree that this article has a lot about his presidency unrelated to his biography. Part of it may be political opinion pushers trying to manipulate Wikipedia.

The terms shellacking and teachable moment should be included. Let's think of some other Obama-ism. These are important details of the biography of Obama. Afghandeaths (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you can find reliable sources that say that not only has Obama been the source of a wide-spread increase in the use of the word shellacking and it was a major point of his entire life, then yeah it should be included. Until then, I would argue for non-inclusion. --DeliciousMeatz (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm keen to hear the meaning of shellacking as an Obama-ism. It's a word that's used in Australia to describe one sporting team beating another team by a large amount, perhaps a similar occurrence with political parties. Been around for a very long time. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixing the intro

I found this buried in the archives. It is recent so it is really bad that someone is hiding it there. I accuse nobody though, just fixing it, copying it here for discussion and change. Afghandeaths (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Cut-and paste of unhelpful collapsed archive discussion Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 73#real problems with this article just because of inbreeding removed. Please note that there is a sockpuppetry case concerning the above account - Wikidemon (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the ideas of 1. close Gitmo 2. limiting salary to $500k to bailout banks 3. stimulus package 4. Obama health care 5. Speech to Egyptians 6. Afghanistan troop surge followed by a pull out starting 2 years later.

I also add that Obama is against making a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline because it pits his union supporters (for) against his Greenpeace supporters (against). Afghandeaths (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a few details and removed a few unnecessary details from the intro. If you disagree, please discuss it. Don't just remove it. Thank you. Afghandeaths (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

These edits[4] are almost all degradations to the article, and introduce material that has been rejected before as having WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT problems. In some cases they are poorly written or ungrammatical as well. Both these edits[5] are bad - the first removes relevant useful information, the second is unsourced and not immediately relevant to its context (i.e. out of place). This one[6] removes an important biographical and presidential fact. These[7] are not "minor facts" that are being edited out. I'm okay with the removing of the discovery of an early video as biographically important here, [8] so I'll preserve that, but there is no need to repeat the circumstances of his meeting his wife, something that is already mentioned. So one change is reasonable, the rest are rejected as degrading a featured article. I'll also remove the extended cut and paste of an earlier disruptive conversation - linking works better. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden was attacked and killed in May, however the attack was planned in April. The section of the intro should be clarified, because it gives an incorrect statement on his actual death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.metcalfe (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Audio link size

The link to President Obama's speech announcing Osama Bin Laden's death seems a bit large. Someone should decrease its size. It's located in the Foreign policy section I would do it, but I don't know how. SMP0328. (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Related article that needs improvement

I came across this article The Road We've Traveled and found blantant vandalism that needed to be reverted. Regardless of how you feel about the film, the article could use some improvement and some monitoring from experienced editors. Remember (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Barack Obama is our first Mulatto president. 69.124.93.51 (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC) "Mulatto" is largely viewed as a pejorative slur in the United States. The common term is "African-American" used by reliable sources, so that is what we use here. See FAQ #2 above. Tarc (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Use obama is black president. Santhosh k (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Note that the term African American refers primarily to ancestry, rather than race, and is thus clearly applicable to Obama. As noted above, see Q#2 of the FAQ.--JayJasper (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC) ok Santhosh k (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama's descent

Obama is currently categorized as being Irish, Kenyan, Scottish, Swiss, and Welsh. How many of those are correct? SMP0328. (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Category creep again. I think ALL of those categories should be removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Everyone had 16 great-great-grandparents (ignoring some very infrequent collusion), and 32 ancestors in the previous generation. There is no encyclopedic value in listing these as there is no reason to believe the nationality of even one's grandparents has much significance for an article like this. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. SMP0328. (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Constitutional Law Professor"

The source says his title was "Senior Lecturer." Why aren't we using his actual job title instead of some fluffed up title he gave himself? Is it wikipedia policy to simply give people achievements when they declare they have them rather than going by the evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the sources again. UC Law twice refers to Obama as a professor. For example: "Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined." This fact is not in dispute. Move along please. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement by his university says he was "regarded as a professor" (whatever the fuck that means), but that his actual title was "Senior Lecturer." Perhaps you should be the one "moving on." If his real job title wasn't impressive enough then that isn't my problem, but using a deliberately deceptive description, for whatever reason, is clearly inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly inappropriate to you, Qwest user. It's clearly appropriate to the university. The word of the latter has more clout. -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

From the same source, "several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School..." Apparently the university did consider him a professor, seeing as they say he was one for 12 years. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

They could call him "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer," but the actual job title they gave him was "Senior Lecturer." Any particular reason why his actual job title isn't being used? Leading people on to believe he has an advanced degree in law is blatantly dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, because for the benefit of readers we are talking about positions, not formal titles. He was not on the tenure track, something that some universities distinguish with specific title descriptions. However, by the account of the university and the sources he was a professor, end of story. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

By the account of the university he was "regarded as a professor" - not to say he was actually a professor. His formal title was "Senior Lecturer," but wikipedia uses the term Barack himself has used "Constitutional Law Professor." The university did not call him a "Constitutional Law Professor" and so the people who write this article are combining sources to get the result that they want, which should be against the rules. You should either call him "Professor" or "Senior Lecturer" and since "professor" implies advanced academic training, which Barack does not have, that is intentionally misleading. I am not going to lie for his marginal benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You do not own this article, so any issues of you lying or otherwise are entirely irrelevant. Nor does working as a professor imply advanced academic training. Go to any college and you will find professors with doctorates, with masters degrees, and with only bachelors degrees. There is a difference between the profession and the title. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No I do not "own" the article, but if I could look at the histories of some people then I bet I'd see strong evidence that you think you do. I just read the "professor" article on the US, and they show lecturers as being distinct from professors. They also make clear the distinction between capital letter "Professor" and the lower-case informal "professor" and in this case the latter applies to Obama, but the former is the one actually used in the article, which is more evidence of intentional lying to promote Obama. I assume this is because the professor article states that a real professor has more prestige than a mere lecturer. It seems like you aren't actually reading my arguments and your mind was made up before I even posted so I'm not sure why I'm bothering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am employed at a higher education institution and personally, would never address a non-tenured person as "Professor". But this institution apparently did, and reliable sources reflect that, so that is really all that is needed. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in the US nearly everybody in a teaching position is addressed as professor (says Professor Schulz). They are not usually described as such. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That's what I've been trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.196.64 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is an absurd re-tread which has been had several dozen times before - see the archives. What article are you reading? Where do you see "Professor" in upper case as his job title? For quite a long time we have had "professor" in lower case in the infobox as a descriptive term, we say he "taught Constitutional Law" (which I know because I came up with the wording almost four years ago) and we give his title as Senior Lecturer in the text. This non-existent, and still pathetic, controversy is incredibly well-sourced as a sop to the idiotic complaints of anti-Obama trolls, which this is once again. Please, let's move on to the next idiocy. Tvoz/talk 05:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is an absurd re-tread which has been had several dozen times before - see the archives. Offhand, I don't know about "several dozen". But even if not, then certainly "frequently". As it is indeed frequently asked, how about adding it to the FAQ list above? -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Length

This article is massive, with the current version running to over 193 kilobytes. WP:SIZERULE says that a page of 100+ kilobytes "Almost certainly should be divided". Why isn't more material being split out to subarticles? Nyttend backup (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This has come up before. The "readable prose" is only 56k, still getting to be in need of some pruning or spinout, but not dire. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

By my tool, readable prose is only 47k, actually. Given the subject, I think this is still reasonable. Tvoz/talk 05:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe removing some pics or, if that wouldn't be feasible, resizing most of them just a bit could help? Didn't check the article for quite some time (b/c of the size) so I'm just throwing out an idea.TMCk (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Using prozesize.js, the article contains 7802 words. Its comprehensive after all, but other Featured Articles are that long, such as Virus at 8004 words and DNA at 7136 words. Feel free to install the script and check other pages yourself. I think a lot of the page size has to do with all the pictures and captions, and the over 300 citations. Here's the full information: File size: 817 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 99 kB, References (including all HTML code): 20 kB, Wiki text: 194 kB, Prose size (text only): 47 kB (7802 words) "readable prose size", References (text only): 1480 B Jesse V. (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Section on drug use

There should be a section that describes the presidents drug use including cocaine marajuana and addiction to nicotine inthe form of cigarretes and drug patch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.218 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to provide information showing that this is indeed factual. If you can find a very reliable source for such a bold and controversial claim, then we'll consider it. Otherwise its slander and speculation. Jesse V. (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

there are some alreadyin the article. Check it out