Talk:Barack Obama

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks 16th, with 13583 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really shocking that an article on someone who is possibly the most notable person on Earth at this moment would have a long talk page... And the delicious irony of wasting these precious kilobytes of yours spamming your results all over every page that showed up on the list is the icing on the cake. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Beeblebrox. Whole-heartedly. --Habap (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

YouTube source

What do other editors feel about this addition? Personally, I don't think it is a notable statement and I'm uncomfortable with seeing YouTube used as a reference. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that it is not a notable statement. Plus, the use of a Youtube video that is over one hour long with no time mark to point out the exact moment that Obama said that makes the statement even more suspect. Outside of that one video discussion, I'd have to see proof he said it more then a couple times and made it a major point of his candidacy to be considered a major political point of his. I'm going to remove it. If it is important enough to be included, then the original poster should post verifiable references that show Obama using that statement as a major political point during his candidacy. Brothejr (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

For completeness, the editor who added this information did note the time of the statement in the reference (32:37), though I must confess I did not trouble myself with viewing it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Basketball injury

President Obama was injured and received 12 stitches during a basketball game today. Should something about this be added to the article, perhaps in the section which states he plays basketball? I can see pros and cons on adding the information. There is nothing in George W. Bush's page about the incident involving him choking on popcorn, but it could also be argued that GW was not permanently injured, while Obama is likely to have a scar. I have mixed feelings about the notability policy, but I am also a FIRM believer in honoring user consensus, so perhaps we should discuss it. AlaskaMike (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

With so much information available about the subject, it is fortunate that we try to write biographies with an historical perspective. The basketball injury is notable today, but by next week it'll probably forgotten (unless he ends up with scars like Captain Mifune after the Sentinels attacked him in The Matrix Revolutions). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Every aspect of a President's health is notable---whether he smokes or has quit smokjing, whether he has been under local or general anesthesia while in office (the latter triggered a XXV Amendment declaration during Bush's colonoscopy in 2002, post 9/11), etc. I apologize for seeing this discussion after I made a small edit in the article, and will abide with whatever consensus is reached. Pr4ever (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey is correct, but I did not bother reverting the recent addition of the information to the article. Let's remove it in a day or two because there is no point arguing over such trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

KEEP-As a frequent Wikipedia user, rather than contributor, I would err on the side of including more information rather than less. I would keep the information regarding the injury. 76.76.193.94 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That is unwise. An enormous amount of information that is of far more value than this has already been excluded and/or moved into the various related articles because of space constraints. This has only transient notability at best. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

While I don't object to your removal of the edit I made before a consensus was made, and accept your non-notability reason, which was sufficient cause for your removal of my edit, why do you have to unnecessarily and insensitively add the "foreign" language source issue. If it's non-notable, nothing else matters and is redundant. Moreover, the appropriate constructive response to any "foreign" language source is to replace it with a non-"foreign" language source, when available. Second, do not forget that for over 51 million of your fellow Americans, Spanish is not "foreign" and for tens of millions more it is a second language (and by the way, I'm not a 'Sapanish-only', Hispanic but 'English-plus'). The first news item regarding the basketball incident happened to be an El Nuevo Día news alert, and that 's the one I used to source my edit at the time. Pr4ever (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This not the "American" Wikipedia. This is the English language Wikipedia. Foreign language sources are not appropriate. Oh, and I'm not an American. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

But you do agree that noting non-notability or, as you stated, "transient notability" would suffice to justify your action? Pr4ever (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, the injury led the CBS Evening News newscast tonight, proof that its notability is strong, though transient. Pr4ever (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is why we have principles like WP:NOTNEWS established, so every scrap or drivel from the 24/7 media doesn't dribble down into Wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tarc and SCJ; it's just a routine sports boo-boo that's not going to affect his life or his Presidency in any way. And, this is the English Wikipedia; readers expect references they can understand. PhGustaf (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify one thing language sources are permitted per WP:NONENG though English sources are preferred. Obviously since there are English sources covering this there is no need for the foreign source in this case though they are permitted in some cases. That said the info is not needed here since nothing major happened (ie the injury was serious and Biden became acting president etc).--76.66.180.54 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The injury is a minor event. The fair thing to do would be for the original poster to point out an equally minor event. If there is none, this injury doesn't belong. If the injury is more significant than a minor thing here, it should be included. MVOO (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Article probation, you're damn right

This article is placed on article probation, it says on top. This is entirely justified because the article is not very well written. What's worse than probation -- fine, censure, or dismissal -- but I don't think the article is that bad that we should fire it, like we fire people from their job.

The big problem looks like it has been written by a committee.

Look at some trivia in it.... On September 30, 2009, the Obama administration proposed new regulations on power plants, factories and oil refineries in an attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to curb global warming.[128][129]

On October 8, 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a measure that expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.[130][131][132]

On March 30, 2010, Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, a reconciliation bill which ends the process of the federal government giving subsidies to private banks to give out federally insured loans, increases the Pell Grant scholarship award, and makes changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[133][134][135][136]

Yet big things are not covered well, like the 2010 election.

There needs to be a more comprehensive way of considering and writing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username 823878701234 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act and "Obamacare" are... er... trivia? Ooookaaaay then. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's not what article probation is, IP. It's a measure used when edit wars and disruptive editing in general makes the article unstable or difficult to work with. Thanks for your vague criticisms though. Grunge6910 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"The big problem looks like it has been written by a committee." Duh. The actual word is community. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Article Probation" is a confusing term. It actually puts the editors, rather than the article, on probation.

As far as the 2010 election goes, Obama didn't run for anything in it. PhGustaf (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Care to change the confusing term. See I am right. If you think the criticism is too vague and not written by committee, then explain why the healthcare thing has a section and then also is in the diary list (shown above). Just cut it out of the diary list.

The hate crimes is a very minor thing, not related to Obama. Ask 100 people the accomplishments of Obama and nobody will mention the hate crime law. Many people will mention the election. There are many articles that some say he was too liberal and turned off voters but a few (not many) saying that he was not liberal enough so the liberals did not vote for Democrats. Anyway, this is a major shift, even Obama said he was shallacked. I'm sure we can come up with a factual way of stating the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username 823878701234 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Obama was running for election in 2010? I must have been sleeping or something. I do not see anything productive being suggested by the IP editor. This seems more along the other arguments of "I don't like this guy and I think the article should represent that view point" type of argument. Before we can discuss anything, we would need to see a whole lot of very reliable sources that are not blogs or opinion pieces that state conclusively that Obama has had no accomplishments of his presidency and also that he was directly running during the 2010 election for this discussion to continue on. Otherwise, this discussion is moot. Brothejr (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. I am accused of "don't like this guy". I like President Obama. Brotherjr is biased because he states "Obama has had no accomplishments of his presidency". That is clearly a false statement.

What I am saying is that this article should be on probation (not the users but the article itself) since it is not well written, just a huge collection of disjointed stuff. The hate crimes sentence is an example of an obscure thing about Obama. Obama didn't even campaign on the issue, it's just one of hundreds of bills that he signed. In contrast, there is no coverage of the election, which Obama admitted responsibility for losing. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-elections-president-obama-takes-responsibility-democrats/story?id=12046360 President Obama today said he would take "direct responsibility" for his party's devastating losses in Tuesday's midterm elections.

One neutral way to say it is that: In the election of 2010, the Democratic Party lost control of the House of Representatives. ABC News reports that "President Obama ... said he would take "direct responsibility" for his party's devastating losses in Tuesday's midterm elections." This same thing happened to Reagan, he lost the House. Username 823878701234 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This featured article is extremely well written, and is the result of the combined endeavor of dozens (and perhaps hundreds) of Wikipedians over a period of several years. Please do not denigrate their work with such derogatory remarks. The same applies to the numerous related articles that explore various aspects of Obama's life and career in greater detail. The Hate Crimes bill (I see you conveniently dropped your objection to mentioning "Obamacare") was a key piece of legislation pushed through by Obama. This is a biography written from an historical perspective. It is hard to predict what significant biographical impact the recent election will have on the subject, so the issue will doubtless be tackled in this article when sources become available that shift from speculation to concrete facts and editorial insight. In the meantime, please feel free to suggest helpful additions and changes to the article, but refrain from disrespecting those who have worked on it before you. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Article probation is an unusual rarely-used tool to deal with articles that are undergoing conflict among editors that has been impossible to resolve through Wikipedia's more common dispute mechanisms. It is not designed to be a tool for improving articles. Most article improvement comes through individual editors or little groups that spontaneously decide to work together to work on one thing or another. There are a few tools for wider efforts, such as the task forces and project groups, and teams that get together to bring articles up to featured status. It's quite possible that the quality of the article has declined since it got featured status, not because the article itself slipped backwards, but because it has not covered events since the election with the same care, completeness, and currency as it did back then when lots of people were working to bring it to featured status. That might be why some of the sections seem disjoint and choppy, because some things are missing. It's a full house as it is, so expanding one section means we'll have to condense another section or bud it off into a standalone article. Big changes like that are pretty difficult because the sheer number of people working on this article creates a sort of gridlock. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoever doesn't want to include the 2010 election has lost all credibility to being objective. This was a major event that is not disputed by any news reports. Of course, there can be debate on how to word it but keeping it off is laughable. On the other hand, the hate crime bill is fairly minor, more important than Obama's lip injury but far, far less important than the election. MVOO (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

fixed

I fixed a major oversight by including information on the 2010 midterm election. It is very important since Obama took responsibility for the election. So you can't say that Obama was not running. It is clearly a big event of the man. The added part was written with emphasis on Obama, not the country. I didn't include commentary by journalist that this is a redefining moment for Obama just as 1994 was for Clinton to be on the safe side.

Here's what I put.

On November 2, 2010, the midterm elections took place where the Democratic Party lost control of the House of Representatives losing the most seats of any election since 1938. Obama called the election "humbling" and a "shellacking" and took responsibility that not enough American felt the economic recovery. Within a month of the election, Obama announced a deal with Republicans involving tax rates and unemployment benefits, despite opposition from many Democrats in Congress but with the support of Bill Clinton.

MVOO (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed. There is already a mentio of this at the more appropriate Presidency of Barack Obama#2010 Midterm elections. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have a short section (and have edited the proposed section, which was re-inserted). In the spirit of an overview of the presidency, the midterm election and change in political climate is probably worth a sentence, as are his ongoing efforts. It's too soon to see how important it is, but a neutrally worded narrative is fine if we are going to include a condensed account of the presidency. Of course the presidency article would explore this in more depth. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You can put anything you want in the Presidency of Barack article. The above text concentrates on Obama's comments of the election. To not have any mention is a travesty by Wikipedia. Note that I did not say what the voters' opinions are as that is not good for this article. But to have no mention is bad.

Look at the article. It says "Obama is a well known supporter of the Chicago White Sox, and threw out the first pitch at the 2005 ALCS when he was still a Senator [252]". To have a trivia fact about baseball but not about the midterm elections and Obama's shellacking comment is beyond bad editorial judgement. MVOO (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Two write sox dont make wong sauce. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

By which I mean, please don't take this all so seriously. You're probably right, but nothing is a travesty, it's just Wikipedia! - Wikidemon (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your feedback Category?

Um, when did this article get selected for a feedback survey? Plus, as a high trafficked article that's both on probation, is it appropriate for a feedback survey. (As in: a feature that can be gamed rather easily by those looking to radically shift the page into an attack page and have a tenancy to create sock puppets to push their POV's.) Brothejr (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama Hits TV

I recently saw a funny episode of The Simpsons where Homer tries to vote for Barack Obama. Wow! Just two years into his term and already TV features him!Aruda556 (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That episode is from 2008 just before the election. Arzel (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, lets not forget that Obama appeared on MythBusters while busting the archimedes death ray myth. JJ98 (Talk) 09:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Political positions sections is truly terrible

IMO this section needs to be completely re-done in order to reflect Obama's actual policy positions as opposed to something he might have said in a speech. For Example: On healthcare it claims that he supports universal healthcare, but that simply is not true. He might have said those words in a political speech but that is not his policy position. On Iran it says he favors talks to deter them from their nuclear program. But again, that's not his policy. His policy is sanctions. This section needs a complete re-write 24.207.226.250 (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the prognosis, but I'm not sure about the cure. You're right that the "political positions" section is a mix of his campaign promises and speeches, party platform, legislation proposed, and actions taken. But I don't think policy and positions are the same thing. Policy would be what he actually does, whereas positions would be what he personally believes or announces he believes - yet two more takes. As a matter of emphasis, during election cycles and before a politician comes to office, their campaign promises and election platform are particularly important - but soon become irrelevant and obsolete. Once they're in office for a while, what they actually do (something we treat in another article, Presidency of Barack Obama) is a lot more pertinent than what they said before. I don't know what the answer is, but it would help to be consistent, and also to update it since most of it was written before the election. Any ideas? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. I would remove the section entirely. It doesn't do anything. Since he is now a historical figure, not a candidate, there's little need for it. In fact, every Wikipedia article with a "Political positions" section is awkward. Those sections mostly repeat material from the campaign/presidency section, while mixing in other groups' opinions. Here are my recommendations:

1) Remove any specific policy proposals ("raising taxes on income over $250,000, on capital gains, and on dividends"). If he did them, they should go the appopriate section of his presidency; if he didn't do them, they're either irrelevant or should be summarized under the campaign section.

2) Move policy group ratings (American Conservative Union, etc.) to "Cultural and political image". Preferably summarize them, rather than including specific numbers from different years.

3) The "Presidency" section should start with a brief lead giving an overview of his presidency and his political strategy. I'm not sure what this would look like, but it could touch on the FDR material mentioned in the "Political positions" section, as well as the ensuing capitulation to conservatives, etc.

—Designate (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The political positions section is bad. It should either go (preferred) or made accurate. It is very hard to track his positions in 2008 and 2011. Do we include only the current positions and give him (and other politicians) free advertising? Or include a summary of all his positions. Some positions change. For example, the senior President Bush was against tax increases (read my lips, no new taxes) but changed his position. Obama was against requiring everyone buy health insurance (in contrast to Hillary) but he changed his policy and was very much in favor of it in 2009. In short, it is a very hard section to write well and there's ample justification to get rid of the entire thing. My vote: get rid of it. MVOO (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I (very belatedly) removed the inapprorpriate "Political positions" section from the article.

• Other U.S. Presidents' biography articles do not have "Political positions" sections.
• As has been discussed many times ([4][5][6][7][8][9]) in the talk page archives, the stale, extraneous "Political positions" section with a haphazard and arbitrary assortment of political positions—exclusively taken from the four-year period when Obama was a U.S. Senator—did not belong in this article, and should have been removed when a "Presidency" section—consuming 40% of the article—was added which covers Obama presidential administration political policies. Newross (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That is much better. —Designate (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing: Reaching out

I couldn't find any mention of Obama's reaching out to the Muslim world (Cairo speech) or reaching out to other countries. This is more important that his lip injury or the hate crimes bill. It should be added. It would only take 2 sentences. This is a major accomplishment and/or attribute of Obama. MVOO (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you gave a little less lip and a little more eyeball, you'd find it. Abrazame (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the issue here should be: Does this article at least try to maintain Wikipedia's NPOV policy? The answer seems to be (albeit imperfectly) yes. One can't expect that in the light of ongoing controversies, for everything to be perfect, especially with lots of people trying to do their thing. Certainly the present article is very far from Conservapedia's claim of it as "fawning". I guess Conservapedia thinks that anything short of its own patently (and thus inappropriate) hatchet job is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alloco1 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry for not signing. Alloco1 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue here. Seems to me that the "issue" is someone came along, suggested that we didn't have Obama's reaching out to Muslim countries in the article (it's right in the foreign policy section) and then accused the article editors of giving unimportant things like his lip injury or the hate crimes legislation undue weight over the foreign policy accomplishment. In both cases this is false, the lip injury isn't even present in the article at all, and the hate crimes legislation has one sentence compared to an entire paragraph on Obama's foreign policy to the Muslim world. So basically, it's just a case of someone coming along and apparently not reading the article, and making accusations despite having not read it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That someone is NOT me because I made NO accusations. Read carefully...it says at the very beginning of the sentence "I couldn't find...." MVOO (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope and change not mentioned in the 2008 campaign

This is a huge omission. I added it. BAMP (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that he was BUILT to be the president of transition, for us to compare him to bush (bush acted idiotic and moronic, yes he acted stupid, more than what he really is) and see in barack (barry) a great leader. next? a big FU to the US. buttering us all up, but for what you ask? all I can say is 1 flag, 1 currency, 1 gov... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.220.95.210 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

BAMP, main campaign points may be relevant, but I'd want to see more RS sourcing on what Obama's specific choice of language was, rather than the catchall phrase that became popularized by the media for it. Anon editor, virtually every presidential candidate tries to set themselves up as better than the last guy if the last guy is from the opposing party. Obama is no different in this, Bush did the same to Clinton in the campaign, Clinton to Bush Sr., Reagan to Carter, etc. That is not unique or notable. As for "1 flag, 1 currency, 1 government," why are you saying that at all? Were you expecting there to now be more than one, and are disappointed? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP is trying to be cute, implying that Obama is leading us to a world government. Typical Fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics. As to Hope and Change, I'm guessing there have to be some books on the campaign that might discuss it. I am surprised that Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 doesn't use any as references. --Habap (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think some of BAMP's edits were good choices quite helpful in concentrating the section. However, some of the material BAMP removed was the result of much-discussed consensus among numerous editors and which benefits the article as well. In at least one instance, rather than restoring the original version, I recognized the legitimacy of BAMP's wish to whittle that part down, and made a different, even briefer version; in at least one other, I restored a somewhat condensed version of what had appeared before, in the spirit of BAMP's reductive intent. (Although, having said that, briefer is not inherently better.)

I'm agnostic on the addition of the Bayh/Kaine data. Speculation is generally not notable, and I'm not sure how that improves the article, but perhaps others will feel it does; I did not remove that, but nor would I argue for its retention at a future date. Abrazame (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of the Denver stadium should be mentioned (the speech is otherwise always given in the convention center), otherwise the readers won't easily see the reason.

Other possible things to add, if you want to add, are things that happened in the campaign. What happened 2 years ago? Don't remember. I do remember the Ayers controversy, the debates about Afghanistan strategy versus tactic (silly debate, I think), Joe the Plumber and Obama arguing, the wackos that wanted to kill Obama in Denver, and Obama suspending his campaign and racing to Hawaii to see his grandmother. I don't think it's vital to have anything mentioned in this paragraph. BAMP (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)