Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

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)

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)

My cousin has an African-American Dad and an Caucasian Mom and he is classified as Bi-Racial so what makes the President so different?

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)

I read that it was deleted by Fastily because of "F4: Lack of licensing information". When it was uploaded, the uploader had pinned a "PD-USGov" template to it. The next day, Feydey added "di-no source" template. The person who uploaded it does not seem yet to have responded to this question about it, even though he or she has found time to make plenty of other edits since then. -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Would this, either as is or cropped a bit, be an acceptable replacement? I'm a bit confused on licensing, because the caption lists usage restrictions but they don't seem much different from the boilerplate explanation of any government photo here. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The Flickr page says: This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. (Neither applies.) The photograph may not be manipulated in any way (one of which ways would be cropping). It seems to me very different from the boilerplate explanation that you cite in that (for one thing) the latter doesn't mention a distinction between news organizations and others. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 3 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)

Agreed. Unless some reliable source says that he lied about something, then it could be eligible for inclusion. Phearson (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what "we don't blog about our personal point of view" means, I obviously and clearly said up there that it would have to sourced. Also, somebody lying is not a "personal point of view". • GunMetal Angel 01:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It is your opinion if they're lying, yes. Politicians routinely fail to follow up on what they campaigned on in the primaries, it is the nature of politics. That doesn't mean that said politician was being intentionally deceptive at the time of the campaign. The only ones that scream "OMG YOU LIKE" are the partisan hacks on the fringes, e.g. WorldNetDaily or MoveOn. Any such list added to this article would be swiftly reverted, and any standalone article would be taken to AfD in a heartbeat. This isn't even worth discussing. Tarc (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well actually, no. US politicians routinely fail to follow up on what they campaigned on, but even more routinely campaign on unspecified change, hope, values and suchlike bullshit (in the Frankfurtian sense of this technical term): see this article. If we wanted to create such lists, it would be easy to put aside descriptions of or promises for the future and limit ourselves to utterances about the past and present. As long as a politician is not bullshitting, such propositions have truth values. Well, are they true or are they false? In principle, reliable sources can ascertain this. (In practice, various factors will complicate this, but it can still be done.) So we could, in principle, end up with a list of falsities. The next problem would be of determining which of these were actual lies. That too might eventually be possible, but it's tough. (There might also be a fear of libel suits.) So I'd suggest limiting it at falsities (if it were done at all). Indeed I don't think I'm screaming OMG anything when I say that a list of falsities uttered by each prez (and presidential candidate?) is an idea that appears to have more encyclopedic value than do lists of trivia for this or that fictional "world". It would have to be discussed calmly by people who neither scream OMG nor rush to label those who disagree with them "partisan hacks on the fringes". Certainly this talk page, being about an article on a specific prez, isn't the place for such a discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely absurd. I haven't commented in this thread because it's a joke, and has absolutely no chance of happening. You're an admin, and actually believe this bullshit has merit? What a joke. Dave Dial (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, two meanings of "bullshit", and it would seem two jokes as well. But enjoy your merriment. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, and I believe it should be left alone. Phearson (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the topic isn't going anywhere. But I would say to the original poster, and really anyone who wants certain criticisms of Obama in the article, please be specific. When you come here and say "can I put in the article that Obama lies" or "why isn't there a criticism section" you just come across as wanting to turn this into some partisan blog. Just say, with specific detail, what exactly you want put into the article, the sources you have for it and make a case for why it is important enough to go here in the man's biography as opposed to say a sub-article about his presidency or some aspect of it. I don't say this out of any political bias, I would say this no matter who the president is. Whenever there is a polarizing figure (which will undoubtedly apply to any U.S. president) you might have to work a little harder to get stuff added. It would be more productive to not ask for vague, undefined additions that you totally swear you have sources for and just articulate what you want with detail and sources at the ready. That's really not too much to ask.Jdlund (talk) 21:37, 14 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)

I couldn't have said it better myself. If the public attention to Obama's teleprompter use is "irrelevant," we should go ahead and delete the whole article about his dog. - Calmypal (T) 14:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I pose the question, what does the teleprompter have to do with Barack Obama? Certainly there are other other people in the world that use one. Why single out the fact that the president uses it? Seems to me that any inclusion of it would be an endorsement for the teleprompter industry. Phearson (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Our personal opinion of the significance of any particular fact is irrelevant. Peter Baker's report on Obama's teleprompter use should be mentioned because it is useful to readers looking for information on the cultural image of Barack Obama. - Calmypal (T) 15:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• The reasons it's removed are simple, it's been discussed here before over and over and found to be irrelevant and undue weight. There is no significance to the teleprompter and Obama's life, it's just a meme from his adversaries to try and explain why Obama is seen as an exceptional orator. Presidents have been using the teleprompter in one form or another since Harry S. Truman, every President has used them since. It's just became more common over time. Even so, common sense dictates there is no real difference between using a teleprompter and looking at your notes while giving a speech. The only difference is that using a teleprompter is easier and if used properly can improve your delivery. This is just all common sense, and has been gone over in the various Obama articles too many times to count. So no, this is not something that is going to be added here or any of the other articles. It's a non-issue manufactured by critics of Obama. It doesn't matter if a person giving a speech uses a teleprompter or written notes. Dave Dial (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The public imagination has been captured specifically by Obama's use of teleprompters. If you want to have the mention of it in the article to point out the regularness of that use (as in all Presidents use one) that would be wise but the simple fact is that Obama using a teleprompter is notable because it is now part of the popular culture. While teleprompter usage's relevance to Obama's governing is debatable, the same is true of his oratorical skills in general. However the idea that mentioning the teleprompter would give it undue weight is ludicrous because the general consciousness has already given it sufficient weight Cliff Racer (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"General consciousness"? I don't understand. I'm certain the public is aware he uses the device. But its not exactly something you would find 20-50 years later in a primary or secondary schoolchildren's history book. Phearson (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thats true of most things (including the Fatty Arbuckle example I cited above and the vast majority of this article,) will not be well known in 20 or 50 years. However it is well known now, certainly a more so than many of the things that did make the cut. I'm sorry if you don't think that President Obama's teleprompter use is a "thing" but the fact that this argument has apparently cropps up all of the time shows that it pretty much is one. I won't bother debating Tarc's comment below this as it appears to be a strawman. Cliff Racer (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The "public imagination" has not been captured by this, what nonsense. Everything the president of the United States does, whether it is use a teleprompter or swat a housefly during an interview, is going to wind up in some media outlet or another, that is the nature of the office of president. That doesn't make every single thing the president does worthy of note in an encyclopedia article. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

So what makes the name, breed, and provenance of Obama's dog worthy of note, but not the fact that, as an exceptional orator, he prefers to use a teleprompter when he speaks? Isn't the number of tries it took him to quit smoking equally irrelevant? - Calmypal (T) 17:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"If I can't have X, why is there Y?" falls under the logical fallacy department as far as I'm concerned. Anything else to offer? Tarc (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a valid criticism. You think it's a big deal to include "irrelevant" information on how a famous public speaker uses teleprompters; meanwhile, there is a 100% meaningless fluff article about how Obama decided what kind of dog to buy, the dog's family, public reaction to him getting the dog, and such masturbatory non-information as "A Wikipedia article about Bo was begun on 12 April 2009." How a great speaker speaks is infinitely more relevant than what kind of dog he owns (unless he consults the dog on important decisions or something), and I see no reason for deleting references to teleprompters that does not apply equally well against the existence of Bo (dog); if he buys a dog, the media's going to report that, but that doesn't make it worthy of note. If a sentence about teleprompters doesn't belong, then surely an article about Bo doesn't belong, and you should be campaigning for its deletion. - Calmypal (T) 18:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Then bring the issue to that article. I'm sure that the editors there will be happy to discuss whatever concerns you have about his dog (He has a dog?). Phearson (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you think it is valid, but unfortunately no one else does, and please do not instruct me on what I should or should not be doing. White House pets, from Socks to Checkers to Fala, have received enormous amounts of coverage over the years, so much so that they even have their own article, United States presidential pets. This is why "but other stuff exists!" is never a valid rationale around here; evaluate topics on their own merit, not in comparison to other stuff. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not taking sides here, but clearing up policy:

• Calmypal: You're comparing apples and oranges. Wikipedia distinguishes between what's notable as an article (WP:NOTABILITY) and what content is included (WP:NPOV); the two policies are independent. "Due weight" does not balance articles with respect to each other, it just balances content within an article. The dog is considered a notable entity, and you can argue at that article's talk page whether that's true or what belongs there. But the content within this article does not need to be balanced with the existence of the dog's article or vice-versa. There's only a one-sentence mention of the dog in this article ("The Obamas have a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo, a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy."). That's the only sentence that's relevant to this discussion.
• Talc: WP:NPOV means that "If I can't have X, why is there Y?" within an article is a completely reasonable question. —Designate (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Since we're not talking about NPOV here at all, your comment is irrelevant. Also, spell my name correctly if you address me; it's only 4 letters, not terribly difficult. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Of course we're talking about NPOV. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." That's what this whole discussion is about, whether the teleprompter issue is proportionate to the president's biography. —Designate (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Those commenting here should look to add the information to Public image of Barack Obama.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fox News' Twitter feed said Obama was dead in apparent hack

This generated a major media event in whole of the world. Should be mentioned in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.190.187 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting this story in the article would give the story more attention than it deserves. No permanent harm was done, so let's move on. SMP0328. (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't give this any attention. WP doesn't usually react to the Twitterverse, no matter how important it might seem to the Twitterati. It was a hoax. Wikipedia is not a social network, nor a newspaper. This "event" is not encyclopedic. Sunray (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Today's news and forgotten by tomorrow.TMCk (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries maybe. But not appropriate for Obama's article. Hot Stop (c) 00:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think this would even warrant a mention in the Fox News article let alone here.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I already forgot about it since a few hours ago. Let it go. —Designate (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not appropriate here. Tvoz/talk 03:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not appropriate. Phearson (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not important enough to mention in this article. It might be worth including in an article about network security. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible Firsts?

Critical comments made by Obama's opponents imply that he is the first President ever to use a Teleprompter and the first President ever to play golf. I have been unable to find definitive sources for those two "Firsts", however. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Eisenhower was famous for his golf outings, at least that second thing is untrue. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Presidents have used teleprompters at least as far back as Truman. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding golf, yes, Eisenhower, but also Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, JFK, Nixon, Gerald Ford, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2, and I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of others. Tvoz/talk 02:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have seen Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 play golf (although I don't know how good they are and no I wasn't with them) so I know they at least play occassionally. With that said I would say if this is all that his opponents can dig up then he must be doing ok. --Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing but chain-letter rumors I guess.TMCk (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)