Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEfirestone (talk • contribs) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I read your FAQ and its wrong,you cant take everything the media tells you serious.He is Bi-racial PERIOD. Preceding unsigned comment added by CEfirestone (talk • contribs)08:46, 17 July 2011

When you say [something-something] "PERIOD", do you mean that an explanation or discussion is not warranted? If so, please go away, because nobody will take your dictates seriously. If on the other hand you haven't merely read the FAQ item but have also digested it, and if you can here argue cogently against it and say why "bi-racial" is the better term, then go ahead. Please provide clear evidence, but also be concise. At the end of your comment, hit "~" four times in a row to "sign" it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any consensus that he's "African American?" Literally, he's clearly multi-racial, since is mother was white. He wasn't born or raised in africa, and wasn't raised in a household influenced significantly be african culture (i.e., his african father left the household when he was a small child). People I know from africa laugh at the American label "african-american" - since people on the african continent do not consider the african continent as defining a culture or people. I'm not taking a poll/vote, but curious if there's any reasoned consensus on this subject. John2510 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What people from Africa feel is largely irrelevant. "African-American" is more an Ameri-centric (obviously) sociological construct rather than a specific/literal ethnic identifier; here, it simply means black, or as my politically incorrect gramma would say, colored. Obama self-identifies as African-American, and the vast majority of reliable sources use the term as well. That is what we go with. Tarc (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the vast majority of reliable sources understand that he is biracial (or multi-racial), as is clearly accurate, e.g.:

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-09/politics/btsc.obama.race_1_black-candidate-black-father-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/12/is-obama-really-black-001459.php

Are there any sources that clearly discuss the issue and consider him to be african american versus multi-racial? If he self-identifies as being of a single race, that would certainly be an appropriate label for the context, in contrast to his actual racial background. 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs)

Never mind. My correction and a single revision lead to my being banned from this article by NuclearWarfare: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John2510&diff=443125824&oldid=443124961

People will have to figure this out without me. Fortunately, this is an issue where the truth is widely known, but it's a pretty scary statement about POV censorship on WP. 05:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs)

See, WP:TRUTH and WP:V. You did not provide sources, and first off, never attempted to engage in debate on the talk page. This article is under ArbCom probation, and you violated it. Simple as that. Its not censorship at all. Phearson (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is basically a test... since I've been told I'm banned from editing on this discussion page as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John2510&diff=443134158&oldid=443125824, which prevents my ability to even discuss the subject.

Sources are above (does anyone have any good faith question about his biracial status... really???).

You can say it's not censorship... just as you can say President Obama isn't biracial. Wow.... John2510 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm What part of debate do you not understand? You didn't do it, you changed the page without consensus, and here we are. Phearson (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And one can surely pick up a few sources that use "biracial" out of a sense of political correctness, but most still go by the African-American convention. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I find this entire argument completely superfluous. The thing is, he is fairly dark skinned, therefore people of African decent can and will relate to him. This is regardless of what he decent "technically is" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.17.221 (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Approval/Disapproval

Shouldn't there be a section about public approval? We have one for George Bush, why not our current president? The current Gallop Poll shows him at 42% approve 50% disapprove. http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx --68.37.181.39 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is already adequately covered in United States presidential approval rating and Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be odd to have that in the bio until it actually has some significance. For instance, if he were to lose the election next year, mention of low approval ratings leading up to the election might make sense. But now, when we are talking about a fluid process with the numbers going up and down with no real impact, it just seems rather arbitrary. It would also seem somewhat arbitrary to pick Gallup over any other poll out there, but that's besides the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Fix the image format

Not sure why it is doing it but can someone please re-format the image of Operation Neptune Spear so it isn't in the 2012 re-election section and is sitting in the Bin Laden section where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a crowded enough section as is. If that image were moved up it would end up leaving us with barely any text in between the images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the alma mater in the infobox say "Harvard Law School" or "Harvard University"?

I would like to think that the infobox would detail the general university, and upon further reading of the article, the specific college of that university would be stated. If a person studied business at Cornell University, should their alma mater in their infobox be "Cornell University" or "Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management"? I'd like to know other peoples' thoughts on this. :) Grenadetoenails (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Presidency

Obama will be the 44th president, but the 43rd man to hold the office. It all goes back to Grover Cleveland who was first elected president in 1884 but was defeated for re-election in 1888. Four years later, he ran for president again and won. He is the only president with two divided terms. After much debate, historians now recognize him as both the 22th and 24th President of the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.2.116 (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And the question of the day is: What does this have to do with improving the article? Looks more like an inviting argument that needs to be taken to scholars, not wikipedia. See WP:NOTFORUM Phearson (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Link FA

Can someone explain why the Link FA template isn't at the top of the page? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What is "Link FA"? Phearson (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If the question is what happened to the FA star, it seems to have disappeared because too many templates are in use on this page and one more was added which knocked this one out. I moved up the FA template, which reinstated the star, but the overall issue should be addressed. I see that the Link FA template is there for about 6 other languages, but I am not an expert in the use of these templates, nor did I find the documentation particularly illuminating, So I can't answer that - but the FA star is back, and I think it's important that it remain visible. Tvoz/talk 21:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my question and glad it's fixed. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

no controversy in the lead?

WP:LEAD: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. [emphasis added]

is there support for adding text to the lead about the most notable controversies concerning president Obama? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there any notable controversies in the article that are missing from the lead? The lead is very dense, so most topics are only mentioned, not discussed. Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" , e.g., was controversial and is mentioned. Similarly with the health care reform bill. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is quite dense and I don't think anything significant is missing. Tvoz/talk 04:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. maybe this debt ceiling debate would qualify? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This article's a joke and a complete whitewash. There IS no criticism of Obama mentioned, and there has been MUCH of it about him and his policies in the real world. Just not here. For a man from Mars, or anyone not knowing anything about politics, they would think this guy is just the greatest thing to ever happen to America and the world. I'm again reminded of why I don't take anything at Wiki seriously when it involves politics. The bias to the left sticks out like a sore thumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.62.49 (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

unless there be any objection, i will put the debt ceiling controversy in the lead. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt anything with the word "controversy" in it will ever be approved for this article. It has yet to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.48.181 (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Small typing error

"His concession speech after the New Hampshire primary was set to music by independent artists as the music video "Yes We Can", which was viewed by 10 million people on YouTube in its first month and received a Daytime Emmy Award. In December 2008, Time magazine named Barack Obama as its Person of the Year for his historic candidacy and election, which it described as "the steady march of seemingly impossible accomplishments". should read "His concession speech after the New Hampshire primary was set to music by independent artists as was the music video "Yes We Can", which was viewed by 10 million people on YouTube in its first month and received a Daytime Emmy Award. In December 2008, Time magazine named Barack Obama as its Person of the Year for his historic candidacy and election, which it described as "the steady march of seemingly impossible accomplishments". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.138.24 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: Thanks for the input, but actually that is not correct - the original wording is right: the music video "Yes We Can" was that speech was set to music, not a separate entity which "as was the music video" would mean. Tvoz/talk 04:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama Approval Drops to New Low of 40%

See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/148739/Obama-Approval-Drops-New-Low.aspx. This should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.40.195 (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes! This stunning drop from 41% to 40% must be given maximal coverage. A minimum of 4 or 5 paragraphs would be the only way to do this precipitous loss of support justice. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's 43% today. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm For those of you who may stumble upon this and unable to see the sarcasm. The answer is no. Phearson (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Youtube controversy, Yes We Can

From the main article: "the music video "Yes We Can", which was viewed by 10 million people on YouTube in its first month[257] and received a Daytime Emmy Award."

The problem is that the reference does not says it in this form: "The first, in which celebrities sing along to an Obama speech, has received over 10 million hits", and this does not mean that there are 10 million (different) people who watched this video. Because the same person can watch it multiple times and hence youtube count him/her multiple times. Furthermore in the Yes_We_Can article uses (I think) the correct term: "...the video had been watched a combined total of more than 22-million times among all of the postings." Moreover see the youtube's official support page http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=154414 : "What is a view? A view occurs when a person watches your video."

Consequently my suggestion is that to replace the text by : "...which viewed 10 million times..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.42.240 (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the controversy, but you make a great point that we should be more precise about describing Youtube hits versus total views (whether on Youtube or other sites). Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, in this case could you update the article? (I can not edit it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.148.222 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

SP: AAA->AA+

See: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/08/06/credit.rating.reaction.cnn/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

It was like a political/economical earthquake in US, but still no word about this in the article. Could you be so kind as to tell me why? This would be good for it: Standard & Poor's has downgraded the U.S. from the top rank of AAA rating to AA+ for the first time in history.

And why would this have to be in an article about Barack Obama? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think in an update of the Economic policy section it would add important context but shouldn't be directly attributed to him.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think his plan for Economic policy was to get the US downgraded. Phearson (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that he did. Bush certainly didn't want the economy to tank or us to lose millions of jobs, but it happened, and rightly or wrongly he was blamed for it. This is apparently a pretty significant situation for the US, and Obama was president when it happened. Rightly or wrongly he will recieve some of the blame, it is the nature of the job. There is no point in not mentioning it in some context. Arzel (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we have no idea how significant this downgrade is yet, either in the short term or in the historical context in which BLPs are written. As I write this, it has had a negligible economic impact, with global markets seemingly more concerned about European problems. Politically, most of the "blame" seems to be attributed to Tea Party ignoramuses who went on TV to say that defaulting on the US debt would be preferable to closing a few tax loopholes, with some being placed on S&P itself for their faulty calculations and flawed assumptions. The few commentators blaming Obama for this issue are almost all political opponents, who blame the President if the sun isn't shining. The event is significant in itself because it has never happened before, but it most certainly isn't an Obama-specfic event. Giving it coverage here would be inappropriate, quite frankly. 112th United States Congress would be a better place for it to go, if it proves to be a significant as some people think. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Want to retract your personal attack on the Tea Party? Arzel (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

His administration isn't an exempt of blame. Regardless though, he is the president during this and this is the first downgrade in U.S. history by a major credit agency. If the article covers his economic policy and economic statistics and debt plans, something like this shouldn't be excluded. That would be improper. The context shouldn't be wrapped around him though.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Against Inclusion - Per WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUE. NickCT (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NickCT's assessment. Besides, it is Congress that has the power to tax and spend, not the President. The blame must lie squarely with Congress. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the article for square blame. Obama ran partly on a bipartisan-cooperation platform and one of the major reasons for the downgrade was Congress' indecision of which he has influence. He also signed the debt-ceiling bill and was part of the negotiations. RECENTISM doesn't apply here as this is the first time this has happened in history. Its context is due in that respect. It happened on his watched and he will be known for it. It is ridiculous to not include it in the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

re "RECENTISM doesn't apply here as this is the first time this has happened in history." - That would seem to demonstrate a poor understanding of WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Recentism is a poor excuse here. This is a globally important situation so due weight is a questionable reason as well. As I said earlier, this is not an attempt to blame Obama, but it is an important situation and is already historical in its context. Obama will be linked to it in some manner whether you like it or not. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, this should not be a matter of what we like or don't like. It is about what is appropriate and what isn't. It is impossible for anyone to know in advance the longterm significance of the downgrade within days of it happening, and it is impossible to know in advance what significance this will have on Barack Obama's life. Until a preponderance of reliable sources indicates that this debt downgrade has (or will have) a significant effect on Obama's life and/or presidency, it would be wholly inappropriate to include anything about the matter in this article. Given that this is only one of the three major credit rating agencies (and arguably the most discredited of the three), it may have little effect on anything at all anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You can live in denial if you want, but that doesn't mean your denial should dictate what is included here. Arzel (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

@Arzel - Shenanigans! I call shenanigans on you sir. You think in 10 years when we look back on the Obama presidency, many people are going to be saying "Oh yeah, the Obama presidency. That was when the S&P downgraded the US's credit rating."???? Of course not. One month from now (if not a week from now), no one will remember this. WP:RECENTISM pretty clearly applies. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The almost default on the national debt is already notable, the result of it is just as much so. Obama is just unlucky in that he was president at the time. No where have I said that this is the fault of Obama, nor am I saying that such a statement be made. However, this is a pretty historical event, and it happened during his presidency, deal with it. Arzel (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from the acerbic language ("denial", "shenanigans" et al) both of you. Arzel, I am not out to "dictate" anything. I merely seek to inform as part of a consensus discussion. Incidentally, you may not have specifically stated that you think this matter is Obama's fault, but by conflating the downgrade with Obama's presidency, you are using guilt by association. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please spare me the whining, you can't claim any high ground while calling the Tea Party "ignoramuses". And I don't think it is Obama's fault, I would blame Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for setting the stage with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and most of the Republican leadership for not holding their ground, but this is the result of many years of unrestrained government growth with the idea that the next person will just have to deal with it. Sounds to me like you just don't like that it occured during Obama's watch. Arzel (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Nick. Including a credit downgrade (which is significant aside from news coverage, etc.) in the article isn't recent-ism. This is an unprecedented event and he was president during it. It is also the tip of the iceberg in regards to several other economic problems that he has campaigned to address. He isn't to blame for all the debt but was president during the first ever debt downgrade. I don't think there should be a section, but a mention of it. That wouldn't be over-inflation of a major first-time-ever event. His continuing response to debt and unemployment will be biographical as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• "It is impossible for anyone to know in advance the longterm significance of the downgrade within days of it happening" (Scjessey)

Probably in economy you are not very strong. To start with, from United States federal government credit rating downgrade, 2011: "A credit rating is issued by a credit rating agency. A credit rating assigned to U.S. sovereign debt is an expression of how likely the assigning credit agency thinks it is that the United States will pay back its debts. A credit rating assigned to U.S. sovereign debt also influences the interest rates the U.S. will have to pay on its debt; if its debtholders know the debt will be paid back, they do not have to price the chance of default into the interest rate. Some lenders also have contractual requirements only to hold debt above a certain credit rating."

Seconldy from United States public debt: "Losing the AAA rating would likely mean higher interest rates and the sale of treasury bonds by entities required to hold AAA securities." To sum up the effect of the downgrading is longterm, one of them is that US will have to pay back more due to the higher interest rate.

• "Given that this is only one of the three major credit rating agencies" (Scjessey)

There was also a warning from Moody's in June.

• "(and arguably the most discredited of the three)" (Scjessey)

Own research?

• I would also like to comment the double standard here. Positive news are included immediately in the article. For negative news we only get the recentism, weight, Crystalball templates. It is a big problem here in wikipedia especially for political articles. I remember how large fight was here when Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize to include the major critics or not. Or when the Libyan war began: wait, it is still ongoing, wait until it ends. About the weight: I would say that the SP's downgrading is more important than the fact that for example "Obama tried to quit smoking several times..." or "The Obamas have a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo, a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy.".
  • There's no problem or double standard here. The debt crisis more broadly, and budget negotiations, are likely a significant event in Obama's presidency, although the extent and significance are unclear at this point. It is truly not possible to know, as many economists have said. There are lots of predictions, speculations, and what if scenarios, but nothing definite. The short and long term effects of the debt downgrade, specifically, are not known, although given the stock market decline they'll likely be significant. The immediate events were initiated by the Tea Party and are mostly a creature of Congress, and the overall budget and debt involves Congress and the President. What is biographically important is the relationship of the President to these events and their affect on his life, career, and legacy. At this early stage, all we can be certain to say is that the President negotiated with both parties and branches of Congress to finish legislation with respect to the debt ceiling crisis, in the wake of which S&P downgraded the debt rating of some bond issuers including the U.S., and there was a drop in the stock market. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is a case study in double standards, although it is really just a mirror of the double standard applied to WP articles in general so no one should be suprised in the least. I do like that the Tea Party continues to get the blame even though much of the caucus voted against the debt deal anyway. Arzel (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Smoking, a Nobel Prize, and having a family with a dog are clearly biographical details. It's hard to see what makes that liberal - Milton Friedman won a Nobel too. But let's chalk it up to "the media is liberal" and leave it at that, no point debating that here. I see no harm to a neutral mention that the debt ceiling crisis, deal, and credit rating downgrades were an event of Obama's Presidency. His career is obviously a major part of his life's work but it is one step removed. We have an article for that, and not everything that's important to the job is quite as important to his life story. If and when the long term to Obama's life and career are established we'll have some solid sources from which we can elaborate. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

START TREATY

START TREATY

This should be a separate paragraph on this page.

Why? Phearson (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Radical?

Why is Barack Obama's ideology radical? Randnotell (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary?

The better question is, why did I move the summary paragraphs that were on top to the bottom?

But, more importantly, was I right? And if so, why was I?Randnotell (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Afghan war fatalities under Obama administration and war pictures

See: http://icasualties.org/ I've thought to check out that page after reading about the deadliest day in Afghanistan: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/world/asia/07afghanistan.html?_r=1

Now under Obama 1101 US troops died in Afghanistan in less than 3 years, while under G. W. Bush this count is 630 in almost 8 years. I would say that this is an important/interesting fact. I have also found a good picture for the Afghan war section: http://www.indecisionforever.com/files/2009/10/barack-obama-coffin-salute.jpg For me it raises many red flags, that when a president leads two-three wars then there is no war picture. But we can see pictures with absolutely no value, Obama is on the grass, Obama is playing basketball etc.