Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

Most liberal senator

Actually according to: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/08fringes.pdf. Obama was not one of the most liberal, he was the most liberal Senator for 2007. Could that change please be made. Rodchen (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that portion of that section should be re-worded, but not in the manner you are requesting. The National Journal rankings are subjective and have been criticized by various reliable sources. In fact, the then editor of the magazine stated in 2004 that it's rankings should not be used because they are "sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong". Coincidently, the magazine also rated Senator John Kerry as "the most liberal Senator" during the 2004 Presidential election. PolitiFact rates this as "barely true", just because the magazine did in fact rate Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, but then goes on to explain the rating is essentially meaningless because of the subjective manner used to make that determination. So yes, that portion should be changed, but I would suggest it either be removed or have more objective wording based on these sources I have presented and the fact that even the editor of the magazine is critical of using the ratings in a political manner. Dave Dial (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If the survey is unreliable we can't self source it for background info about who Obama is as we now do. We can't begin to fit in the stuff that's actually true, much less the dubious stuff. Saying that he was described as X, but he probably isn't, has little relevance to the article without context. I do know that some of his opponents latched onto that and used it as a campaign point against him, but sourcing their statements is also unreliable. The only way I could see keeping it is if we have third party neutral reliable sources that say the ranking of Obama as the most liberal senator was subjective, but the ranking -- as opposed to actually being liberal -- became significant to him. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Any 'ranking' on being liberal or conservative is of course subjective. That is why one quotes those who do the ranking. But since the article quote and cites nationaljournal, then the article should at least site it correctly, and state that they ranked him as the most liberal senator in 2007. Please see the reference. One may disagree with the ranking, but the statement 'According to National Journal Obama was ranking the most liberal Senator in 2007' is a statement of fact. And to say 'According to National Journal Obama was one of the most liberal senators' is actually hidding part of the truth. Rodchen (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The placement of this disputed factoid as one of five sentences summing up his senate career gives it undue weight and I'm going to remove it on that basis. The place for a full discussion of the factoid - including Obama's comments disputing it which are absent from this section - is probably the Senate Career article and not this one unless the Senate section is greatly expanded. Gamaliel (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you think the same way about the sentence 'He enjoyed high popularity as senator with a 72% approval in Illinois' especially since the article is actually dealing with MN senators and not Obama. Rodchen (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the issue that the 72% approval is subjective, disputed, or discredited? If so then yes, the mere fact that there exists a questionable poll would be of little WP:WEIGHT. On the other hand, if the point is that the high approval rating reported is poorly sourced or unimportant that's a separate question, perhaps that should be removed too. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Rodchen (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this "most liberal senator" label is that it is based on voting record, which is necessarily curtailed during a campaign. Most of Obama's votes during the campaign were made because they were needed to ensure a Democratic majority, and are thus skewed toward leaning liberal. In any case, this issue is already covered in the appropriate place. A biography of Obama's entire life should not focus on his 2007 voting record, per WP:WEIGHT -- Scjessey (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously any objective observer would not consider Obama the most "liberal" Certainly people like Russ Feingold are considerably to the left of him. The word liberal does not really have a set meaning anyway. For Example, Is voting for a giant wall on the southern border conservative or liberal? However, it could still go in if worded properly. For instance: "The National Journal claimed that..." 68.188.25.170 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden Death audio file

I added an audio file for the Bin Laden death. This was reverted 41 minutes later. The file is 6.05 MB versus 31.68MB for the video. It is provided for the many readers on slow connections or who for whatever other reasons are unable to access the video. It is common to provide audio only alternative files and I think it is imperative for a file of this significance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Audio-only version restored. SMP0328. (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Characterization as pro-gay

Obama is widely celebrated as the first gay president of the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs)

That's very odd wording. They mean gay as in a homosexual male, no? He is not homosexual though afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking I was going to take one look at this and delete it as vandalism, particularly as the OP neglected to sign his post. But at a glance and without reading those articles I get what they say. I don't really know if these sources are notable enough to make the biographical statement, I don't recognize any of these names the way I recognize this one, from the Bill Clinton article:

"Clinton drew strong support from the African American community and made improving race relations a major theme of his presidency. In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison in The New Yorker called Clinton "the first Black president", saying, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas", and comparing Clinton's sex life, scrutinized despite his career accomplishments, to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.

This was particularly notable because Toni Morrison had a great deal of gravitas and prominence and insightful, poetic depth as a spokesperson to the black experience (no faction has a single representative, but she was undeniably chief among a handful of living equals as such). And it was a very thought-provoking statement in full, not merely a moniker. I don't think the moniker itself out of context is at all helpful—to the contrary it would be perceived as inflammatory. We're not saying something that is literally so, or even a directly figurative comment, the way one might call, I don't know, Michael Jackson the "King of Pop". He was not a king in any respect, but he certainly established a decades-long primacy in the field of pop music. But Clinton is not black and Obama is not gay, so you need a really significant notability to give traction to the biographical meme. It may sound lame to say I haven't read the articles yet I'm gonna weigh in with my reaction anyway, but part of my point is that people who were not black knew who Toni Morrison was, or ought to have. I don't think anybody who is not gay knows who McCullogh, McCarthy, Weinstein and Perez are — which is not to say they are gay, but which is to say they are not universally accepted as an arbiter or diarist or poet of the gay experience the way Morrison was of the black experience.

Now, I'm not exactly the arbiter of the gay experience either, so correct me if I'm wrong (ought I to know who these four are?), but I think I'd recognize any number of prominent gay names. And I recall someone arriving at this page furious that Obama wasn't doing enough for gay rights. In fact, I recall coming across an opinion piece a few years ago by a gay man lambasting Barney Frank as being anti-gay. So, you know, there's always going to be somebody who disagrees with a characterization — and there may be good reason for that minority within a minority opinion — and no group is monolithic, but I'd like to see someone bring to our notice an unquestionably prominent and deeply respected individual giving a thoughtful, fulsome statement before supporting it as a biographical detail. Feel free to make the case if there is one amongst these four, but I think without that, this is the sort of thing we would include in, you know, a fifty-page article (or a specific article about Obama's record on gay issues) but that just doesn't rise to the notability standard we require at Wikipedia in general and a wide-ranging presidential bio in particular, the way the Morrison comment about Clinton does. Abrazame (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel

The section on Israel needs a lot of work. Most importantly there needs to be something about his opposostion to United Nations recognition of Palestine as an independent state. Even going so far as to say he would actively stop such a recognition with a veto. He has also said that he would seek to maintain Israel's military advantage over the Palestinians http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/144753.htm. The way the article reads now gives the reader a completely false impression of Obama's position. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your article makes no such claims, doesn't even discuss most of your claims' topics, and is a year old (Obama's positions on Palestine have changed a lot in that time). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What? Are you denying Obama says he will veto UN regognition of palestine? I take it then you don't know anything about the conflict and Obama's official position? Please don't try to edit the israel section then. As far as the article, yes it clearly says the militarty advantage stuff. Its in the headline of the official state department press release. Read it again. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am denying that your source says that. Your source doesn't even include the word "veto" in it. Until you present a reliable source backing your claims, you should not be editing the section either. That's Wikipedia policy. Being a headline from the State Department doesn't change the fact that it is a year old, and Obama's policies have changed in that time, and doesn't change the fact that it does not say what you claim. Present a source that does. That goes the same for all of your topics. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think anyone could not have known about his official positon opposing UN recognition of Palestine. Yes there are many sources http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=224394 And yes the military advantage stuff is clearly in the headline of the official state department release68.188.25.170 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would that information possibly need to be in this article, instead of in the Presidency of Barack Obama article? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

The Iraq section needs lots of work At minimum there needs to be mention that Obama intends to keep American military bases and troops in Iraq until beyond his term. I'm not as concerned with how the rhetoric is phrased or whether wikipedia is calling the war over (The previous American president also declared that "combat operatins were over in Iraq several years ago) just as long as its clear that our bases and troops are still there and not planning on leaving during Obama's term 68.188.25.170 (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Care to present a source? Given that your next two sections on this talk page make claims often directly refuted by your sources, I think we'll need to see a reliable source for your claims before discussing them further. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bahrain

There needs to be something about Obama's polices regarding the rebellion and subsequent clampdown in Bahrain. Obama has recently hosted the corwn prince of Bahrain and reaffirmed America's commitment to the Bahrainian regime and characterized the protesters as terrorists. There also needs to be mention of the large number of American military bases in the country. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/white-house-affirms-relationship-bahrain-detentions-and-prosecutions-continue 68.188.25.170 (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your article says no such thing, except that the Crown Prince was here. It makes no mention of the US declaring the protesters to be terrorists, and in fact specifically has statements of Obama condemning the mass arrests. It does not indicate support for the government crackdown, and in fact shows Obama's praise of things like lifting the martial law decree. You're going to have to do a lot better than this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it clearly says that Obama is supporting the the regime's crackdown on the rebels and protesters. This is not opinion up for debate, this is his official position 68.188.25.170 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source saying it. The one you presented says, quite literally, the exact opposite. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

More on Bahrain: Obama gave them $200 million over the last 12 months to help protect the government from rebeliion http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/105771 ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.25.170 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

However you'd characterize it, a detailed mention would be undue weight here, as this is a biographical article. There are better articles for describing US relations with individual states in the middle east. It might deserve a couple words in a sentence about the US reaction to Arab Spring events, if such a sentence is added to this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are deliberately misrepresenting the claims of the article, but I'll assume good faith and that you simply misunderstood it. It does not say that Obama gave them anything. It doesn't even say that a branch of the U.S. government gave them anything. These were private weapons sales from U.S. companies to Bahrain. The Government reviews sales between U.S. weapon manufactures and foreign governments, and the article is specifically addressing how the government is looking into the effectiveness those procedures, but the government itself didn't give Bahrain anything. Also note that the article says nothing about Obama. It would be odd to say "Obama approved..." because on a basic level he didn't. Whether or not he's responsible for everything that is done by the State Department falls into more of a campaign issue regarding appointment decisions and so forth. Obama himself would not handle something as mundane as reviewing foreign wepaons sales; that task would be handled by people within the State Department. Again whether any oversight by Department officials reflects on Obama is a separate issue, it would still be odd and incorrect to suggest that Obama personally approved of the weapon sales and it is completely false to say the government gave Bahrain anything.Jdlund (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yemen

There needs to be something about Obama's policies in Yemen. Obama supports the regime in Yemen and is aiding in the government's crackdown of protesters/rebels with supplies and airstrikes http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?_r=1 Mention of strikes aimed at killing Anwar Al-Awlaki might also be appropriate 68.188.25.170 (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not an accurate description of the complicated situation (well, your description isn't). Your article is about intensifying strikes against al-Qaeda. The protesters are an entirely different and separate thing, and not mentioned in your article at all. On that, the United States has been critical of and putting pressure on the Yemeni government, most recently proposing that a new transitional government form while Saleh is out of the country. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about cooperation with the regime of Yemen to keep them in power against rebellion. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. Flat out, it is not about any such thing. It is about US actions against al-Qaeda. It says so itself again and again. It even talks about how this fact, and our airstrikes, have been made difficult by co-mingling of al Qaeda forces with the rebellion. It further points out that the US is working on making its case to possible transitional governments that the strikes need to continue. Post Saleh transitional governments. I'm left to ask if you really read your article, or the one I linked to you. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is about joint military operations between the US and Yemen against Rebels. You call them terrorists but that is POV. They are people trying to overthrow the government of Yemen. The traditional term for that is a rebel. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What is not POV is that the militant groups the Obama administration has been opposing, according to the article (not necessarily Obama personally, which affects weight and elevance), are linked to Al Qaida and that America considers them terrorists. This is a pretty big issue with respect to relations between the United States and Yemen, but as a snapshot of US involvement in a number of simultaneous related events in a number of countries, one issue in one part of the globe, it needs to be kept in proportion. Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Either way, remember -- this article is about Barack Obama the person, not his policies. Only extremely broad-strokes overviews of his major, most defining policies, actions, and positions belong on this article. His policy towards Yemen -- regardless of what it is -- doesn't really meet that standard; it belongs on a more specific subpage or one devoted to his presidency rather than the man himself. --Aquillion (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Heritage

I imagine this has been discussed innumerable times before but isn't "African-American" a bit vague and misleading a term to describe BO's ethnic background? Considering he is half white and half Kenyan, shouldn't the proper term to use be "mulatto"? -Red marquis (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Barack_Obama/FAQ. Q2. We're done here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This question has been asked over and over again, and is included in the FAQ, so I won't waste much time here. I just wanted to point out that "mulatto" is NEVER the proper term. It's like asking if the proper term should be "colored" or "negro." And, in case you didn't know, the answer on both of those would be a resounding NO as well.Jdlund (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from TheLibrarian64, 28 June 2011

Change a native from Honolulu,Hawaii TO Born in Honolulu, Hawaii

TheLibrarian64 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - No reason to make this change, as the existing wording is fine. "A native of" means "born in". Tvoz/talk 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't go ahead and do it over the objection, but I think this deserves consideration. Were he born in any of the 48 contiguous states, there would be no issue, but Hawaii – and I believe Alaska also – ascribes a special meaning to the word "native" (usually capitalized, granted), and the suggestion doesn't seem unreasonable. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed it. "Hawaii Native" does have a specific meaning, and Obama isn't one. (Not at all a swipe at Obama or anyone else; it's perhaps worth noting that Hawaii is among the most racially openhearted places on the planet.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Although the existing wording is fine, I also say that "Native" is also acceptable. Phearson (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a big deal either way. I just chose to go with the more neutral and inarguable term. PhGustaf (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)}

← Hmm, I don't see it that way, PhGustaf - the phrase "Native Hawaiian" does have special meaning as a reference to the indigenous people of Hawaii, similar to "Native American", also a referent to the indigenous peoples. But saying "A native of Honolulu, Hawaii," to me means only that he was born in Honolulu, not that he is a "Native Hawaiian" in that indigenous-people sense. So to my ears, it is correct as it stands, "a native of Honolulu, Hawaii". (The "of" changes the meaning.) "I am a native of New York" doesn't make me an Algonquian. I don't think it's a big deal at all, but I do think as a featured article we want to keep the writing as good as possible, and if we can avoid repeating the word "born", it seems to me to be better writing. I won't go to the wall on this one though. Tvoz/talk 01:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Tvoz. "Native of x" doesn't imply ethnicity to me any more than (e.g.) "South African–born American" would imply "African American". "Brilliant prose" would seem to recommend against repeating the word "born". But it's not a huge issue either way. —Designate (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm with everyone! I'm feeling very inclusive today. I agree that "a native of" works, and has the exact same logical implications as "born in". However, invoking the word "native" creates a modicum of cognitive dissonance because it reminds people of the usage of capital-n Native, and may confuse a few... hence the request. Thus, I think it's better and clearer if we say "born in". Actually the fact that he was born in Hawaii is more relevant than that he's a native of Hawaii. The first is a biographical fact, the second an affinity designation. It's like saying that it's raining instead of saying that we're in the rain zone. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo gone

The photo File:Obama and daughter Sasha 2006.jpg was recently and swiftly given a Wikipedia:CSD#F4 and is now simply a bare red link in the article. Does anybody remember its provenance — was it a fair use photo that simply didn't have the proper blurb filed for this admin, or do we have to find another pic? Abrazame (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Obama and daughter Sasha 2006.jpg

Obama and his younger daughter, Sasha, in 2006

I have moved the file to this talk page. There's no point in having an empty image file in the article. If the image is restored, then the file can be as well. I'm also curious as to why the image was deleted. At least there should have been an explanation given at this talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Lies

I was thinking about a list of lies article to be made to where it shows the list of confirmed and sourced lies Obama has stated. It could be helpful to many. • GunMetal Angel 02:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not going to happen, no. We write articles based on what reliable sources have to say, we don't blog about our personal point of view. Tarc (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Teleprompter

It is interesting that any mention's of Obama's teleprompter user are promptly deleted. Whether or not his use is significantly different does not matter when discussion of his teleprompter is widespread among the general public, as shown by comparing the Google queries for Obama+Teleprompter (Obama teleprompter) and Bush+Teleprompter (Bush teleprompter.) Omitting this popular topic of public reference to the president would do a disservice to Wikipedia's goal of being an informative encyclopedia for everyone just as much as omitting the false accusations of Fatty Arbuckle committing murder would from his article.

Cliff Racer (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)