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)

President Obama described himself as African-American on his census form. He considers himself black, not multicultural (which was also a Census option this year that many young people checked. African-American is just a word, not an identity, but all words are ultimately just words.

As a Southerner, and incidentally a white Southerner Not Unlike Our Father JimmyJims Whales, whose ancestors probably owned slaves and committed many other atrocities throughout our family and the region's history, I can say that it does matter that Obama was not descended from slaves.

But, my friends, I believe it's more notable that he's the first African-American President of the United States.

And that's the edit I would make if I were still making edits, and not asking questions on the talk pages.

Randnotell (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think his Census form choice and the analysis of it settles it at "African-American" or "Black." http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/nation/la-na-obama-census4-2010apr04 Oneinatrillion (talk) 18:46, 21 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)

Good question.Randnotell (talk) 02:54, 10 August 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)

Harvard Law. That's what he graduated from. So long as there's a link, people will know.Randnotell (talk) 02:43, 10 August 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)

That's a distinction that should be made on the Presidency page.Randnotell (talk) 02:44, 10 August 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)

Of course there is controversy in the lead. People's feelings will be hurt by Barack Obama's presidency, esp. those of the folks who didn't vote for him, but that doesn't mean he's not the President. #RealSorryBoutItBirthersRandnotell (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating myself since it was removed last try, obviously any hint of controversy or anything else to suggest Obama doesn't walk on water and has made controversial moves will hurt the feelings of the keepers of the flame here. So it doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.48.156 (talk) 07:33, 15 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)

It is a new low, it's just a new low for Barakandroll.

It helps to think of the Executive Office of the President of the United States as distinct from the man, but including the man.

Not unlike a Wiki user's page and his talk page ;-) Randnotell (talk) 02:08, 10 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."

This is a really good question, because it's an English language question. Let me explain:

The music video, called "Yes We Can," received a Daytime Emmy Award. The music video called "Yes We Can" was viewed by 10 million people. In English, you can combine the two sentences by layering one sentence inside the other. That's what a "phrase" is, I believe.Randnotell (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

You're right, of course. Just need the right language, and don't need to make it a focus. #GoldStarRandnotell (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Just link to the article, and make the article better. Think about the effects nukes have on people (80,000 dead at Hiroshima but more than that dead from cancer), and start working on the nuclear weapons article like that: nukes cause death, but they also lead to cancer, which is just a slower death.Randnotell (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing unhelpful trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) If you don't know why you made an edit to the article and have to ask other people here, perhaps you are drunk or otherwise incapable of clear-headed editing. If you are capable, explain yourself; if instead you enjoy others' attention, please look for it in some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Hoary, I know. Do you?Randnotell (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Your motivation doesn't interest me. Please turn off your computer. -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.149.50 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should make a note of the "interesting" number of war deaths under Franklin D. Roosevelt too? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing unhelpful trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's worth running the link from the Times, and we should mention it in the article, but we shouldn't make it a focus. The Times ran casualty names during Bush's presidency, but still ran them under Obama's presidency. I would argue that that shows that the names are important, and I would argue that each one of those men meets the notability guidelines. Hard to say that if you give your life for something you believe in, you're not notable. That's true for people who die for what they believe in but don't happen to be Americans, we just don't necessarily know all their names. I would like to see all 50 million men, women, and children who died in World War II have their own Wikipedia articles. We just have to find the names, and once we've found the names, there will be space on the servers. And that's way more important than the number under the name of the encyclopedia on the Main Page. Y'all know what I mean?Randnotell (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I know what you mean, but it doesn't interest me. If you want to interest me, you'll have to be persuasive, and this is not the place. Incidentally, "notability" as defined for Wikipedia's purposes is only tenuously related to notability as most people understand the word. Please read about this in your own time and, if you wish, protest it, but not here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC) In fact, my friend, this is exactly the place to protest imprecise language. Check out David Foster Wallace.Randnotell (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversion explanation

As I alluded to in the edit summary, I reverted the last series of edits for two reasons:

1. It is standard practice to list the home page of a website, not a sub page.
2. Reliable sources all describe Obama as "African American", rather than some percentage of same. The article should reflect what the sources say.

-- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The "percentage" edit has been re-added to the article, so I have asked the editor to self-revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In case this crops up again, the editor agreed to be reverted. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The first President to have been born in Hawaii

This is simply not notable, and we have also one much more important first in the article: "He is the first African American to hold the office."

Just checked, that for example in other US president's artilce's you don't list this minor fact: Bill Clinton the first who born in Arkansas, Richard Nixon in California, Jimmy Carter in Georgia, Ronald Reagan in Illinois etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.186.10 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed notable. It is a fact noted by multiple reliable sources (see the sixth reference for the examples chosen for this article). I would also argue it is notable because Obama did not come from one of the contiguous 48. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about the "Asian writer ponders..." reference? I think that it is a good example how to give an unreliable/totally bad reference to an article, from it: "Jeff Yang wrote a column asking if Obama could be the first Asian-American president.". But from the main article and everywhere we can learn that he is the first African American president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.187.246 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. Being the first African American POTUS and the first Hawaiian POTUS aren't mutually exclusive. And the citation you refer to has the interviewer (Martin) saying he'd be the first POTUS from Hawaii. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Being the first POTUS from a particular state is not noteworthy; what IS noteworthy is that he was the first from outside the lower 48.Estil (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Perception of inaction/ineffectiveness

Apropos of Obama's First days (as prez), the article tells us that

He ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010,[113] but during his first two years in office he has been unable to persuade Congress to appropriate funds required to accomplish the shutdown.[114][115][116]

Well, yes; but the first-days matter that's backed up by note 113 strikes me as a lot less significant than the year-after-year matter that's backed up by notes 114 to 116. There's a widely held perception that, wherever the fault for this may lie, the US under Obama is pretty much pursuing the policies set by the previous administration ("PATRIOT", extending tax cuts for the rich, etc). It's so widely held that at least one book (Kabuki Democracy) assumes it and shows (or purports to show) that it isn't Obama's fault. Yet the section Cultural and political image, where this might belong, makes no mention of it. (This section does point readers to the article Public image of Barack Obama, but the latter seems limited to discussing mere soundbite fodder.)

I do realize that a large section of WP's readership are obsessed with such matters as religion (and need to be told that the man is Christian and not Muslim, and that it's this version of Christian rather than that one); and I don't object to the material about religion, or indeed that about (relative) youth, ethnic identity, etc etc, let alone the material about specific issues (Libya and so forth); but the bigger picture seems like something stuck iin 2009. Or what am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation needs rollback

Last Thursday (August 11), User:Iamiyouareyou changed the pron file to have a non-English pronunciation for some reason (the edit summary was something to do with "not using English accent on a non-English name" or some borderline-racist nonsense like that). Now if I could figure out how to undo that and change it back to the American version that was there before I would, but I'm not well up with how the Commons works. Could somebody friendly fix this for me please? —80.1.161.16 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me one little bit if this was indeed the same guy who was edit warring on this article on the same day as that new pronunciation file was uploaded. I wish I knew how to revert that change to the commons file, but I see no mechanism other than a clumsy upload of a new file. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted that bizarre pronunciation back to the one that was there before. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from MishaKeats, 18 August 2011

In the Family and personal life section, the article stated that Obama has seven half-siblings from his Kenyan father's family – six of them living – and a half-sister with whom he was raised, Maya Soetoro-Ng, the daughter of his mother and her Indonesian second husband.

Barack Obama actually has ten half-siblings, as itemized below.

(i) From Barack Obama Sr and Kezia Obama: Abon’go (Roy) Malik Obama (1958), Dr. Auma Obama (1960), Abo Obama (1968), Bernard Obama (1970)

(ii)From Barack Obama Sr and Ruth Baker: Mark Okoth Ndesandjo (1965), David Opiya Ndesandjo (1967)

(iii) From Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham: President Barack Obama II (1961)

(iv) From Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro: Maya Kassandra Soetoro (1970)

(v) From Barack Obama Sr. and Jael: George Hussein Onyango Obama (1982)

(vi) From Lolo Soetoro and Erna Kustina: Yusuf Aji Soetoro (1981), Rahayu Nurmaida Soetoro (1987)

Source: Presidential Candidates. Org

First ever post, so please excuse any procedural mistakes in making this request. Cheers

MishaKeats (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Thank you for your request, Misha - we appreciate your input, but our text is actually correct. The children of a subsequent marriage of his one-time step-father, Lolo Soetoro, are not his half-siblings. Only the children of his father or his mother with other partners are correctly noted as half-siblings, so there are six living half-siblings from his father and one half-sibling from his mother. Tvoz/talk 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Excessive linking and unintuitive piped links in the lead

Excessive linking

Is there any way to reduce the amount of "blue" in the lead? Currently, approximately 50% (1065/2119) of characters (excluding spaces and the pronunciation of Obama's name, as well as hidden text and formatting such as [[, ]] and ''') in the lead are part of a wikilink. The breakdown, by paragraph, is as follows:

• 1st paragraph: 108/263 characters = 41% "blue"
• 2nd paragraph: 177/373 characters = 47% "blue"
• 3rd paragraph: 323/707 characters = 46% "blue"
• 4th paragraph: 457/776 characters = 59% "blue"

This makes the lead more difficult to read and essentially buries useful links to relevant articles in a sea of blue.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Unintuitive piped links

There are a number of unintuitive piped links in the lead. I understand that their purpose is to minimize the amount of text, but "easter egg"-type links are not reader-friendly and are almost entirely meaningless in print versions of the article. The links which caught my attention are:

Link (as it appears)	Wikicode	Notes
first	[[List of African-American firsts|first]]	the text that follows is a link to African American
Democratic primary	[[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004#Democratic primary|Democratic primary]]	the preceeding text is "March 2004"
keynote address at the Democratic National Convention	[[2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address|keynote address]] at the [[2004 Democratic National Convention|Democratic National Convention]]	the link to the 2004 DNC could be removed: e.g., "keynote address at the Democratic National Convention"
gradually withdrew combat troops from Iraq	[[Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq|gradually withdrew combat troops]] from [[Iraq War|Iraq]]	it seems unnecessary to link to Iraq War: e.g., "gradually withdrew combat troops from Iraq"
Afghanistan	[[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|Afghanistan]]	Afghanistan is a separate article about the country
kill	[[Death of Osama bin Laden|kill]]

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Chess

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/08/almost-all-american-presidents-play_19.html

Probably add: "Barack Obama plays chess.". My wild guess that this can be more important/interesting than the fact his dog's name is Bo.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.127 (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If "almost every President" played/plays chess, how is it notable? Also, that reference is just somebody's blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

But she notes also a reference, anyway there are lots of hits for Obama+chess. Furthermore I don't understand you, lots of US presidents also had got dogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.127 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Truman was actually quite a good pianist, for what it's worth.[4] Nixon played piano too, but he was a little stiffer and more workmanlike.[5] Everyone knows Bill Clinton played sax.[6] Most modern presidents played golf and jogged. Perhaps we can have a list article on passtimes of the presidents? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, you are bringing pretty bad examples: from Harry S. Truman: "He got up at five every morning to practice the piano, which he studied twice a week until he was fifteen". And Bill Clinton: "He was in the chorus and played the tenor saxophone, winning first chair in the state band's saxophone section."; addition to this the article mention multiple times the saxopohone. In other words your examples just confirm me that the chess should be in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.127 (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was just chatting, and very amused by Truman and his piano. I don't have an opinion either way about chess and Obama. The dog's a sore point, though. Everybody who wants to add something says that the article talks about the presidential dog, so it might as well talk about X, where X is something about smoking, basketball, teleprompters, golfing vacations, whatever. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama being the first born outside the lower 48 and first born in 2nd half of 20th century should be included

Okay, everyone knows how historic it was that he was the first President of African American decent. But I think it's also just as interesting and noteworthy (though it doesn't get as much attention) that he was the first born outside the lower 48 United States (as would have McCain if he had won) and the first President born in the second half of the 20th century (they made a VERY big deal about Kennedy being the first born in the 20th century). I keep trying to add these in the intro but a few others are making excuses for deleting them. It's just so annoying trying to make contributions only for them to get zapped on some technicality. I can understand insisting on "reliable sources" if the entry is of a questionable or controversial nature or if it's something we're otherwise not sure about. But in my case, there is no real dispute that the above is true (Wikipedia is quite clear that common sense/common knowledge statements don't need sources). And if we can include in Jimmy Carter's article that he was the first born in a hospital, I don't see why we can't include the above. Estil (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What it is is trivia, there is nothing extraordinary about half-centuries. If you have a problem with something in Jimmy Carter's article, then take it up at Talk:Jimmy Carter. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If you were paying attention, I was NOT saying I had any "problem" with including Carter being the first born in a hospital; I was using it as an example. And yes, many history/President sorts of books do point out this first.Estil (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a very high profile and high-traffic article. It is best to achieve WP:CONSENSUS for such changes before making them. In the event that you make such a change and it is reverted - perhaps you didn't know about how closely watched this article is, for example - that is an even stronger sign that you should be here looking for consensus for the change.

Having said that - I am opposed to mention of the items you've mentioned - especially in the lede - as mere trivia. While your points about JFK and Carter are correct, they are more meaningful in my opinion. To make note of which half of a century a president was born in invites us to then pay attention to which decade...and then what? Clinton was noted as the first president to be a member of the Baby Boomer generation, but...that generation is well-documented and reported and has been for decades. Second half of the 20th Century? Not notably different than any other slice of time. Lower 48? Also not so notable, and indeed I think non-American readers might find the wording more confusing than illuminating.  Frank  |  talk  20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on this page has already run against including that he's the first president born in Hawaii, and I'd put the "48 states" and "2nd half of century" factoids in the same boat, just not relevant to a biographical understanding of the man. It is important that he was born in Hawaii, and that he is fairly youthful, came of age in the 1960s and early 70s, etc. What isn't so important is that he was the first. If another president had been young or born outside the continental US, so what? Obama would still be Obama. That's where the sourcing comes in - if most accounts of Obama don't see fit to mention these, that's a sign to us that the reliable sources of the world don't consider it worth stating. There are 50 states, 6 half centuries, and 44 presidents - every president is going to be the first at lots of things. George Bush was the first president to lose a battle with a tortilla chip, and his father the first to throw up at a Japanese state dinner, and Jimmy Carter the first to vanquish a swamp rabbit (sheesh, I can't believe these things merit an article). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Your second-to-last statement starting with "George Bush was the first..." and pointing out all those frivolous things was rude and disrespectful. You are essentially making a mockery of my attempted contributions. And I never said that just being the first born from a particular state was notable; my point was that him being the first born outside the lower 48 (or 48 continuous or continental US if you prefer). In fact, the 2008 election article mentioned (or did mention) the fact that either candidate, Obama or McCain would've been the first from outside the lower 48 (McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone). So if it was good enough to point out during the election, why not point it out here?Estil (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, although in W's case, I think it was a pretzel...thankfully, not mentioned in his article, though.  Frank  |  talk  03:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Trivia. --John (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are two separate issues here. Being born in the second half of the 20th century is not notable. Being the first to be born outside the continental United States is notable, as is Jimmy Carter being first to be born in a hospital and Bill Clinton being the first to be born after World War 2.

I will concede the "first born in the second half of the 20th century" as being eh, "not so notable" but as the person just above me pointed out, I think being the first born outside the continental United States should be included at least. After all, prior to the 2008 election, did we ever have any serious Presidential contenders from outside the lower 48? And yet for the 2008 election, three out of the four Pres/VP candidates in the 2008 election (except Biden) were born outside the lower 48!Estil (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, only McCain and Obama were born outside the lower 48; Sarah Palin was born in Idaho. Still, it does not appear folks agree this is notable anyway.  Frank  |  talk  02:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Foreign policy

This article on U.S. President Barack Obama seems to be all in all quite good to me. However, the section "Foreign policy" does not contain anything on Obama´s political standings and actions toward general world politics, even towards Europe and Russia. Maybe even China, I don´t know now. And what about the world monetary problems of today? Other economic problems? Nowadays topics like first actions for 2012 election campaign? Well, there is a large field for new serious contributions. -- Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Chief Justice's oath flub

Ought to be mentioned? Reading "First Days" it felt absent. Thoughts? Oneinatrillion (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Extremely minor incident, and it already has a paragraph in Presidency of Barack Obama. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted someone's response when I signed my comment! They said the incident was minor and given a paragraph under Presidency, which I read and thought was interesting. Didn't know he was the 7th President to re-take the oath. But, I would say that noting that the Chief Justice flubbed the oath and that it was redone the next day at a private ceremony could be mentioned, as the First Days section is just a blurb anyway, and ought to include a fact like that among his first day EO's was an order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay within one year. Oneinatrillion (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's been proposed and rejected before (rightfully IMO) as being too minor and not relevant enough for the article. It's just a curiosity that has no bearing on Obama's life or the course of his presidency. The Guantanamo promise probably ought to go, because nothing came of it. It may be worth mentioning somewhere that Obama's plans / promise to close Guantanamo didn't come to pass (which is different and more relevant than just saying he made the promise). But even that's probably too minor a fact for this article. There's hardly enough room here for major things that did happen, much less listing things that didn't happen. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I also have to ask has there been any recent coverage of this flub or was it a story that died out quickly? Personally, I don't recall hearing anything about this for years.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)