Talk:Barack Obama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.24.211.105 (talk) at 22:16, 1 November 2011 (→‎Scandals (Solyndra and Fast and Furious)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleBarack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 10, 2009Featured article reviewKept
March 16, 2010Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

Template:Community article probation

Obama's hair

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348933/Has-Barack-Obama-dyed-hair-black-hide-greying-locks.html

Worth to include say: "Observers have said the U.S. President's hair has changed colour dramatically because of the pressures of the job since he assumed office two years ago." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.185.42 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be (and is) said about almost every US president. It isn't notable. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is similar articles in relation to President George W. Bush hair. Not notable. Phearson (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My hair underwent a similar color change at a similar age. I wasn't the the President. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, being the president is stressful. Anyone's hair would go grey- look what happened to Tony Blair! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.75.196 (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A man who was never president... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still, he was an equivalent. But you get the idea. Phearson (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humanrightsinvestigations.org

Have a look at: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/09/21/barack-obama-troy-davis-martin-luther-king/

The latest case, Obama has not saved the innocent Troy Davis from the death penalty, and killed yesterday. Moreover from the article, which I think should be suitable for our article: "He has supported the rebels as they lynched black men in Libya. He has lent his full support to Mahmoud Jibril, the rebel leader, who has approved the commission of genocide against the black Tawergha of Libya. And he has pursued a war, based on propaganda, which is killing civilians daily in Liby." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.147.196 (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we would need more than one source to add something like this.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opinion piece and from a relatively obscure organization to boot. As such it's not a reliable source. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this organization claims to engage in rigorous investigation, but I see no independent investigation... It's basically a blog with some nasty videos and pictures. Checked the domain ownership record, and it's registered to a proxy group... so it could be run by literally anybody. With the extremely heavy focus on Libyan rebels and enemies of the state, regular praise of the old regime and consistently embedding videos from self proclaimed Gaddafi supporters it could very easily be literal propaganda.--Cabazap (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Could someone looks at how the templates are set up at the bottom of this page please? The issue is that there are links instead of templates down there. I've not seen anything like it before, and I am not sure how to fix it. Thank you in advance. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 07:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested assistance at the technical Village Pump. Since the issue appears to affect only the final thirteen templates in the article, perhaps the article has exceed some sort of transclusion limit. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this at WP:VPT, and can offer a technical fix, but it is not without its own problems. Essentially, I have substituted a large number of templates, so that they are no longer transcluded. You can see the result at User:NSH001/sandbox 2.

The technique is to use Special:Expand templates to substitute some of the citation templates - in this case, those placed as list-defined references in the "Notes" section. This process is NOT straightforward - Special:Expand templates won't expand templates within <ref> ... </ref> tags, so the ref tags have to be edited first, then Special:Expand templates applied, then the tags edited back again, then the wikitext finally pasted back into the article (I used an external text editor to edit the ref tags).

The advantages are that fewer templates are now transcluded, so the limits are no longer breached, and the page will load a little faster.

The disadvantages are the difficulty of future maintenance: firstly any global changes made to the citation templates will no longer be reflected in the article; secondly it becomes much harder to edit these citations (it might even be necessary to maintain a separate subpage (probably of this talk page) to hold the un-substituted version of the templates).

Because of these disadvantages, I have not made any changes to the article. Instead, I think it should be discussed here first. If you decide to use it, all that's needed is to copy/paste the wikitext from the "Notes" section of my sandbox version over the corresponding wikitext in the mainspace article.

My own view is that this should be regarded as a temporary fix only. This is a Featured Article, so it can and should be trimmed, either deleting material altogether, or moving it to appropriate "Main" articles.

--NSH001 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your informative comment. I think you're correct that the best approach, in the long term, would be to trim the article of unnecessary references (the article includes hundreds and multiple citations often are used to support a single fact) and information that should be moved to sub-articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed (diff) the following YouTube reference in the section '2008 presidential campaign': "Presidential Campaign Announcement" (video). BarackObamadotcom. YouTube.com. February 10, 2007. Retrieved January 29, 2009. The information which the source supports is noted in the other sources that are cited: Chicago Tribune (two articles) and BBC News. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are only a part of the problem. The whole article, in my opinion, needs a major re-write, with substantial trimming. --NSH001 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed the "exceeding template call size" errors. I think it has too many references, over 300+, and then there are 10 different refs within those 300+ citations. Needs major trimming! --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I swapped out the Barack Obama/succession tmp, that fixed the tmp call limits error. I also mved that tmp to not be a subtmp of the main tmp, because I think that was also adding to the tmp calls. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does look like a better solution for the immediate problem (BTW, renaming the template makes no difference to the overhead caused by calling one template from another). If no-one here has any objections within the next couple of days or so, I will delete my sandbox version. The best solution, of course, remains a re-write of this article. --NSH001 (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't sure about the template subpage causing problems or not. The major problem now with the article is that it has too many citations, the "cite web" template must also be causing the template call overload. I've been working on paring them down and combining the duplicates using "ref name", but it is somewhat difficult to decide which citations to keep and which should go; and I'm sure someone would disagree with my choices! Does anyone have any suggestions? --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

I have an edit request to add the more prominent nicknames of Obama into the sidebar like his most common "No drama-bama"Kentpaulgta (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crap like that does not belong in an encyclopedia, and will never appear in this article. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Would you find something like that in Encyclopedia Britannica? No. It is useless information. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering there is a page that already displays this, You'd think you could add considering it is valid information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Drama_Obama#Barack_Obama — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentpaulgta (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

although the existence of the nickname technically makes it valid, it does not mean it is relevant and should not be in this article.AcuteAccusation (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a page that has this info, why does it have to be doubled here, given the article is very long already? (magicmulder) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.82.64.222 (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel/Palestine

It seems the Israel section needs some revision to reflect Obama's policy positions. Right now it reads that he supports a "two state solution", and while I am sure he has said those words in his speeches, that is not his policy. He officially opposes recognizing Palestine as an independent state and officially opposes allowing them a vote at the United Nations, unless they agree to various hardline conditions such has agreeing never to have an army and not having a right of return. No such conditions are put on recognizing Israel an an independent state. 97.91.176.159 (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources please, and I'm afraid that only his actual policies and opinions can be included. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 3 Tishrei 5772 05:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.211.105 (talk) [reply]
Sources? Really? Is it not established that he officially opposes recognizining palestine as a state while he does recognize israel? It seems people who are locking his page should already be able to source this, but here you go. No only does he not recognize them as an indpeendent state, but he opposses others doing so, and vows to veto it at the united nations if they vote to recognize palestine. Once again, israel is recognized fully with no conditions. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44606988/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/obama-abbas-us-will-veto-palestinian-statehood-bid/ http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-to-abbas-u-s-will-veto-palestinian-statehood-bid-at-un-1.385932 97.91.176.159 (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from his speeches (and sources) that Obama does indeed favor a two-state solution; however, the United States is very particular about how this will occur because of its close relationship with Israel. Just because the US did not support the most recent effort to gain Palestinian statehood, it does not follow that the US opposes Palestinian statehood. I don't think the political ins and outs of the US policies with respect to Palestine and Israel are appropriate to explore in a biography of Obama's life, though I think the specific positions of the Obama administration should probably be made clear in Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Sources, really". We cannot simply say "OMG everybody knows that". That's not how Wiki works. Reputable sources, without synthesis on our part.204.65.34.246 (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so we have a source. but your are still not changing the article. There is infact no mention of his opposition to a Palestinian state at all. And it actually tries to imply the opposite, saying that he is for a two stzte solution, which is clearly not the case, He only recognizies Israel, not Palestine as a state. 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.176.159 (talk)

Obama's statements regarding vetoing the Palestine resolution are very clear in that he does support the eventual creation of such a state, but not through unilateral action by the Palestinians at the United Nations. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Short memo: Obama cannot recognize any state or country. The US does or doesn't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whole lot wrong with this article

This article seems like it is just a bunch of pieces mixed together. It is very disjointed and the selection of what appears is not comprehensive. It could be a result of political supporters or opponents crafting together an article. The percentage of online people supporting him is slightly greater so that affects the article.

There should be entirely new people reviewing this article because the people who wrote it probably put a lot of time into it but the product is not good. I am not going to be a reviewer except to choose one paragraph.

The paragraph

As president, Obama signed economic stimulus legislation in the form of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009 and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act in December 2010. Other domestic policy initiatives include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act and the Budget Control Act of 2011. In foreign policy, he gradually withdrew combat troops from Iraq, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, signed the New START arms control treaty with Russia, ordered enforcement of the UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya, and ordered the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. In April 2011, Obama declared his intention to seek re-election in the 2012 presidential election.[4]

The critique

This is in the introduction. It is just a selection of laws that people have selected. Some of them are not really Obama related, only happened to be President. This is because some of them were not his campaigning. If we use that measure, then the Lady Gaga article could have mention of some of these bills (just kidding).

My advice is to work on one paragraph every two weeks and really see if you need it. Start with the first paragraph.

With this sample paragraph, listing these bills looks like an ad. One way to fix it would be to see what are Obama's major accomplishments. They are the stimulus bill (don't need to have those fancy bill names as they are now chosen because of politics), Obama's health care.

Another way to fix it Another way to fix it would be to have a new committee of people who have never written about Obama and have them craft an article. Then compare and contrast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hood River (talk • contribs) 05:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2, Getting rid of obscure parts of the article not very related to the Obama bio

Yet another way, probably better is to step back and pick 4 paragraphs to do an introduction.

paragraph 1: general introduction as the 44th President, African American, Democrat, etc.

paragraph 2: Previous background as Hawaii, Indonesia, etc. College where. After college and law school. Illinois Senate, US Senate.

paragraph 3: Very broad Presidential summary. Term marred by recession, had stimulus, Obama health care, possible loss of House due to Obama health care. Not a lot of law mentioned here.

paragraph 4: Other things, like author, Nobel Prize, but certainly not the 2010 Siena College poll (which shouldn't even be in the main article...why is it even there!) Hood River (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles as important as this one are subject to a lot of scrutiny, and are edited on an incremental basis. There's no mechanism in Wikipedia for appointing editing committees or requiring all the active editors to recuse themselves. If you have a specific proposal, please feel free to make it for editors' consideration. I do agree that the scattershot list of presidential actions is incomplete and hasn't been weighted properly by the importance or the extent of Obama's role. I disagree about the Siena College poll, at least as a matter of approach. This article is a biography of the President, his life and career, and for that purpose presidential scholars assessing him as a president are a lot more relevant than various journalists writing about specific events. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)c[reply]

I agree with Wikidemon's assessment that the article is a scatterbrained list of presidentials events. Voting is silly because then it will reflect his popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonwiki2 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Some ideas mentionedd are good in theory. There should not be a laundry list of bills that President Obama signed. I removed a few trivial ones, trivial in the sense that President Obama did not campaign hard for these bills, did not make it an issue. If we let a lot of less relevant stuff be in the article, soon it will be an article about "The World during Barack Obama's Presidency", not "Barack Obama".[reply]

Here is what I removed:

The first bill signed into law by Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, relaxing the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits.[1] Five days later, he signed the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover an additional 4 million children currently uninsured.[2]

On October 8, 2009, Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a measure that expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.[3][4]

On March 30, 2010, Obama signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, a reconciliation bill which ends the process of the federal government giving subsidies to private banks to give out federally insured loans, increases the Pell Grant scholarship award, and makes changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[5][6]

If you don't agree, cite where Obama was a key driving factor in these laws or cite articles where he made it a big deal. Issues that Obama made a big deal include closing Gitmo and the stimulus packages. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation". The New York Times. January 30, 2009. Retrieved June 15, 2009.
  2. ^ Levey, Noam N. "Obama signs into law expansion of SCHIP health-care program for children". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved June 15, 2009.
  3. ^ "President Barack Obama signs hate crimes legislation into law". Bay Windows. October 28, 2009. Retrieved October 12, 2011.
  4. ^ "Obama signs hate crimes bill into law". CNN. October 28, 2009. Retrieved October 12, 2011.
  5. ^ Parsons, Christi (March 30, 2010). "Obama signs student loan reforms into law". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 18, 2010.
  6. ^ Branigin, William. "Obama signs higher-education measure into law". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 12, 2010.
Restored. Please don't remove cited content without first establishing a consensus for doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted back. Please note that you may not be a bully but you are doing bullying because you offer no reason. Wikipedia allows people to be Bold. My boldness is very logical, not radical. I offered a good explanation. You offered none. Therefore, my logical prevails. Please do not change it back. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, your "boldness" is vandalism. You have removed cited, relevant content without even making a passing attempt at establishing a consensus for doing so. My reversion is clear proof that your edit was disputed, so removing the content again is a violation. Restore it immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of removing that material, how about added to it in order to clarify how much Obama was involved in the passage of those laws? BTW, each of you needs to assume the other editor's good faith. SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are being criminal in falsely accusing people of vandalism. Very little was removed. All was discussed. If you disagree, you should state in a calm and logical fashion... "I think 'The Trivial Act of 2009' is an important part of President Obama's bio because he campaigned about it a lot before being President". If you give that kind of reasoning, I will probably agree with you. Instead, you just say "no, no, no, I am throwing a temper tantrum, I accuse you of vandalism and genocide and every other crime I can think of". Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To SMPO0328, you are more mature than Scjessey. Go for it. Research how President Obama was for the bills and how he made it a big part of his campaign. Obviously, he was for it a bit because he signed it. However, just being for it a bit is not enough (otherwise, we would have to list all the bills that he signed). Here's the deal. I will let off the article for a day but Scjessey or others should not knee jerk insert the material back in. Come on, people can think of the reason to include what and not include what! Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@SMP0328 - I did AGF. See here for further details.
@Hi Balloon Boy - You can't just go around deleting great chunks of a featured article without first establishing a consensus for doing so. Having been told this, to then do so again was vandalism. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the hate crime paragraph makes sense because Obama did not make it a big issue about hate crimes. The Ledbetter part some people may want since it was the first, but not really a notable first. So hate crimes, no, Ledbetter, maybe if enough people really want it. Sorry, HBB you win some, lose some. Same to Scjessey...please both of you get along.BAMP (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed that paragraph? It was a key piece of legislation, important to an enormous group of people. Your edit summary is also disgracefully misleading. Please self-revert. -- 15:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the gay legislation is very important to gay people. However, this article is about Obama, not Gay Rights. I see that there is a consensus that these laws are an obscure part of Obama's bio. Not one person has provided evidence that they are major parts of the Obama bio. He did not campaign hard for it, like he did for the Gitmo closure or for Obama health care changes. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop this. First of all, the user that started this thread has been indeffed, and it's not so strange that both Hi Balloon Boy and BAMP are disrupting this article once again, since they are socks of JB50000. Which someone will need to add to the SPI case. Irritating that the socks are not already blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 300M Americans and maybe 300M foreigners interested in Obama. If only 1 in 100,000 come to write for Wikipedia, then that means 6,000 people are editing the article. Rather than listen to the voice of statistics, you just falsely accuse others who support a neutral Wikipedia, not your political motivations.Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Dial aka DD2K is disruptive. The suggestions I made are very good; remove some obscure laws that are not part of Obama's bio. In response, Dave Dial is disruptive and falsely accuses others. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balloon Boy, I'd be careful acting like you have a moral high ground when it comes to disruptive behavior in the form of accusatory language. Remember that you have thrown many accusations against other editors in this conversation yourself, including a false claim of criminal behavior. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have just falsely accused me! I looked at your link The link you provided is[4] . It accuses nobody! Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To quote you from the very first sentence in the link I provided, "You are being criminal in falsely accusing people of vandalism." That is an accusation of criminal behavior. Furthermore, I'd point out that you are now engaged in making misleading or outright false edit summaries while continuing your edit war. That also hurts your claim of a moral high ground, and may itself violate policy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This issue is being discussed at WP:ANI at the moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do think mentioning these laws is important and contributes to understanding Obama's presidency. Glancing at the pages, Obama actively came out in support of these, signed them, etc. They were a part of his Presidency and should remain. Down the road, I can see them being removed - particularly the Lilly Ledbetter Act - as Obama passes more legislation, but now it seems fine. II | (t - c) 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lilly Ledbetter Act was the very first act President Obama signed into law, which makes it highly notable. I'd of thought that was the last thing to get rid of. It's like the baseball from Hank Aaron's first home run. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's relatively inconsequential and forgettable. Put it in the article focused on Obama's legislation or presidency, maybe. That baseball is a trinket, and Obama's first act can be looked at as equivalent to distracting trivia. II | (t - c) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Inconsequential and forgettable? I'm sure American women will appreciate your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with II and Scjessey. The act may be something that women like but it is not a major part of Obama's history. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the article. BAMP (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's weird! You started editing shortly after Hi Balloon Boy got blocked, and then proceeded to remove content just like he did. I'll assume good faith here and just chalk it up to an amazing coincidence. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read this article for years and was amazed at how badly it's written. The common thing I've seen is that if people don't have a leg to stand on, they accuse people of being socks. Very childish. Just explain your editorial ability and suggestions, not attack others. BAMP (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't those signings to moved to Presidency of Barack Obama? That seems a much more logical place for them, since they are more significant to his presidential career than to his entire life. Twenty years from now, they could still be notable for his presidency, but not for Obama the individual. —Torchiest talkedits 17:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are in the article as part of the summary style process. The content of the sub-articles (like Presidency of Barack Obama) is summarized here, with particularly notable stuff given a little more prominence. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strong consensus, Torchiest, II, Balloon Boy, me, that trivial pieces of legislation are not part of his biography but could be moved to the Presidency of BO article. Please support a well written article, not a poorly written one with your pet laws inserted. BAMP (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be disingenuous. There's no consensus for removing that content (and one of those people has been blocked). We are just at the early stages of talking about it and hardly anyone has had a chance to weigh in. Also, cut out the "your pet laws" stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

first african american president

This is inaccurate. He is the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.4.70 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of something is still the first of something. We call the first child in a family the "firstborn" regardless of whether another has yet even been conceived. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If we go make it "only" African American President, then we'll just have to change it when the next is elected, so why make extra work for ourselves. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with logical and cobra, plus changing it to only african american president makes it seem as if there will not be another.AcuteAccusation (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all he is Biracial, even though I know he identifies as African American, the beginning of the article should at least state he is the first president of African American descent or first president of Irish/African descent. Educatedlady (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's already been discussed a trillion times. He's an AA and identifies as AA. Period. B-Machine (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does the article in any way deny that he's biracial, and does discusses his mother and her roots. Given that he wouldn't be the first Irish president, it isn't notable. While in countries other than the US (such as South Africa) being biracial did often put you in a different class than a more "pure" (terrible choice of word here) background, it has not in the US. What has mattered in the US is what you looked like, and looking at all darker of skin than "white" has meant you were "black," or far worse adjectives. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced materials

From the 3rd paragraph: "Several events brought him to national attention during the campaign, including his victory in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary for the Senate election and his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004."

Without any source that it was a national attention. Furthermore note that he was an Illinois Senator for 8 years, so it is hard to say that he was unknown.

And this is also: "He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004."

I believe it is true, but for lots of non-US residents this is not known fact. So for them it would be great to add a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.158 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire introductory section is a summary of what follows, and fully comprehensive sourcing for everything in the lede is available in the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Israel

The following sentence does not make sense and is incorrect, as written: "Before Adm. Mike Mullen, now Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had visited Israel for over a decade, but in 2010 he made two trips, bringing his total to four.[207]"

The information in the original source that was cited, reads, "Meanwhile, visits by the Israeli and American military brass have jumped dramatically. Since becoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2007, Adm. Michael Mullen has made four visits to Israel, two of them this year alone. Before Adm. Mullen, no chairman of the joint chiefs had visited Israel for over a decade."

I suggest the text would better read, "Adm. Mike Mullen, current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made four trips to Israel since 2007, two of them in 2010. Prior to that time no Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had done so for over ten years." Since I cannot make the edit, I would appreciate it if an administrator did so. (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Great suggestion. You don't need to be an administrator to edit this article, by the way. You just need to accumulate a few more edits and you'll be good to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Carmaskid (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order to reflect the retirment of Adm. Mullen last month, tonight I changed the sentences listed above to, "Before his retirement in September 2011, Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made four trips to Israel during his four-year tenure, two of them in 2010. Prior to 2007 no Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had done so for over ten years,"Carmaskid (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Obama article, not the Mullen article. Likewise, mention of the death of some old governor (forgot his name) wouldn't be included because that old governor has nothing to do with Obama. BAMP (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adm. Mullen visited Israel on behalf of his Commander-in-Chief, and did so at a higher frequency than other Joint Chiefs of Staff have done. That is why it has been included in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's the 43rd President

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention, Obama is in fact, not the 44th, but the 43rd President of the United States, as Grover Cleveland held the position twice non-consecutively. 124.184.247.174 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's why Grover Cleveland is traditionally counted as both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. Most reliable sources count the Presidents this way, and will probably do so if there's another President who serves nonconsecutive terms. szyslak (t) 12:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, and this matches the pages for all presidents.204.65.34.216 (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best solution is to have a footnote.BAMP (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq

Today I added the sentence, "On October 21, 2011 President Obama announced that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq in time to be, 'home for the holidays.' [200]" but I'm having trouble doing the footnote correctly as it's my first one, and I'm not very good at understanding the directions in the tutorial. Could someone please check the reference and tell me if I need to do anything differently. Carmaskid (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle vandalism

I have been told that this article is on article probation.

That means you need to discuss changes. If you do not, that may be vandalism. Anyone can revert vandalism. To do so is helping Wikipedia. Please don't vandalize!

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi Balloon Boy (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore your edit again. You would simply risk being blocked. SMP0328. (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Hussein Obama II ?

Despite the FAQ Q4, the "II" is incorrect because

  • The person in question does not us the "II"
  • "II" is never used in any significant way with reference to the person, e.g. of the hundreds of official documents the person has signed in the past three years, how many have included the "II"?
  • The birth certificate is not dispositive; that is the one document that the person had the least choice in drafting.
  • A great many people change their name over the course of their lives, including many women upon marriage
  • The pronunciation guide in this very article omits the "II". If the article is going to include the "II" then it must also tell people how to say it.
  • Where it is necessary to distinguish this person from his father, the latter may have the suffix "Sr." without affecting the name of the child.
  • The "II" makes wikipedia look silly and out of step with reality. rewinn (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly does. It suggests that we are talking about someone else but the current President of the USA, because nobody ever uses that name to refer to him. Surely WP:Commonname applies. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that something here looks silly and out of step with reality, but it's neither Wikipedia's consistent application of WP:Commonname to determine article titles nor it's application of WP:MOSBIO to include a biography subject's full name in the opening sentence in order to convey full and accurate information to those who might actually come to an encyclopedia to learn something. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Almost every biographical article Wikipedia that Iv'e seen uses the full name of the person in the opening sentence and in the vast majority of case no one has complaind. For example, I am not aware of anyone complaining that we use Richard Milhous Nixon despite the fact that the middle name is not usually used. I have also not seen anyone demand that we don't use James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. since he is best known as Jimmy Carter. I don't see why this is any different.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biased wording needs fixing: State of Union address

current version

On January 25, 2011, in his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama focused strongly on the themes of education and innovation, stressing the importance of innovation economics in working to make the United States more competitive globally. Among other plans and goals, Obama spoke of a enacting a five-year freeze in domestic spending, eliminating tax breaks for oil companies and tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, banning congressional earmarks, and reducing healthcare costs. Looking to the future, Obama promised that by 2015, the United States would have 1 million electric vehicles on the road and by 2035, clean-energy sources would be providing 80 percent of U.S. electricity.

Why it is bad=

There have been many, many State of the Union addresses. Most of forgettable.

Focus strongly? That is opinion.

Importance of innovation economics? That is rehashing the speech.

Weathiest Americans is just campaign speech.

Possible more neutral version

On January 25, 2011, Obama delivered his yearly State of the Union Address. The speech included ideas on education and to make the United States more competitive globally. He proposed a five-year freeze in domestic spending, eliminating tax breaks for oil companies and increasing the top tax bracket (commonly called "Bush tax cuts" which were extended in a 2010 deal), banning congressional earmarks. Obama promised that by 2015, the United States would have 1 million electric vehicles on the road and by 2035, clean-energy sources would be providing 80 percent of U.S. electricity. Hi Balloon Boy (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I don't even know why that paragraph is in the article. How is one state-of-the-union biographically significant?--NortyNort (Holla) 01:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to question that too. It's probably more apt for the Obama Presidency article. Dave Dial (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is poorly written, Israel section is an example

This article is poorly written. The trouble is that a few people defend the status quo.

Let's take one section, Israel.

That section poorly defines Obama's biography in relationship to Israel. It mentions strong support and the missile system.

Off the top of my head, if there is an Israel section (does it need to be there?) then the spat with Netanyahu is relevant as well as settlements. Obama's trying to stop Gaza from being a member might be another issue.

Basically, the selection of issues is lop sided. It seems that one Wall Street Journal source is used to justify the content.

There should be consensus to include Israel. After there is consensus, there should be consensus to what to include. Baring any consensus, nothing on Israel should be included, not the status quo. My vote is that some things be included, not a total removal of the section. BAMP (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is you deleting and changing huge chunks of the article without first seeking a proper consensus for doing so. I suggest you revert the article to the last stable version and then maybe people will be willing to talk to you about what you wish to achieve. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop making these changes without consensus. For a featured article that has been praised to be declared 'poorly written' by you seems a bit much. Dave Dial (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but normally articles are based on sources, not "Off the top of my head". Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did Obama hit the King`s dream?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "If Martin Luther King were alive today I believe that would remind us that unemployed people have a right to condemn the arrogance of Wall Street without demonizing all those who work there.", said U.S. President Barack Obama at the opening of the National Memorial Center dedicated to M. L. King in Washington, according The Guardian. The question for discussion is: Did Obama hit the King`s dream? Perhaps is to early to say so, but I think it`s the best way. For this thesis I have three strong argument: Obama is the first African American President of the United States, he was and still is fighting for peace in the world, and capitalism with a human face. 78.2.49.135 (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, where do you believe that quote belongs in the article? SMP0328. (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is nitpicking but...

I was under the impression that the correct wording is "As [b]P[/b]resident, Obama administered over..." etc. This article uses "As [b]p[/b]resident, Obama administered over..." etc. Are we sure this is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's correct. When addressing Obama as President, as in President Obama, it's capitalized. When preferring to him as 'the president', it's not. Or something like that. Dave Dial (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DD2K is correct. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says the following: "In generic use, apply lower case for words such as president, king, and emperor. (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference). In parts of a person's title, begin such words with a capital letter (President Obama, not president Obama.)"Carmaskid (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization Suggestion

I understand that this is a featured article but there is always room to fine tune any written piece, and sometimes it is helpful to have new eyes look at it. The following is an outline of this article as it currently exists.

Barack Obama

  • Early Life and Career
    • Chicago community organizer and Harvard Law School
    • University of chicago Law School and civil rights attorney
  • Legislative career: 1997-2008
    • State senator 1997-2004
    • US senate campaign
    • US senator: 2005-2008
      • Legislation
      • Committees
    • Presidential campaigns
      • 2008 presidential campaign
      • 2012 presidential campaign
    • Presidency
      • First days
      • Domestic policy
        • Economic policy
        • Health care reform
        • Gulf of Mexico oil spill
      • Foreign policy
        • Iraq War
        • War in Afghanistan
        • Israel
        • Lybia
        • Osama bin Laden
      • 2010 midterm election
    • Cultural and political image
    • Family and personal life
      • Religious views
    • Notes etc.

I have read this article multiple times, recently. I think that it ends discordantly. All the personal information belongs together. I'm not quite sure about the appropriate placement for the section on cultural and political image, as I need to go back and read that section again. It might make a good transition between the sections on personal and professional life. I left it at the end of the list for the present. IMHO, the following reorginazation would increase the readability of the article. The new outline would be similar to the following:

Barack Obama

  • Personal life
    • Early life
    • Later family life
    • Religious views
  • Professional life
    • Early career
      • Chicago community organizer and Harvard Law School
      • University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney
    • Legislative career: 1997-2008
      • State senator 1997-2004
      • US senate campaign
      • US senator: 2005-2008
        • Legislation
        • Committees
    • Presidential campaigns
      • 2008 presidential campaign
      • 2012 presidential campaign
    • Presidency
      • First days
      • Domestic arena
        • Economic policy
        • Health care reform
        • Gulf of Mexico oil spill
        • 2010 midterm election
      • Foreign arena
        • Iraq War
        • War in Afghanistan
        • Israel
        • Lybia
        • Osama bin Laden
      • Cultural and political image
    • Notes (etc.)

In the Domestic arena section we might consider adding information on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and something about Political opposition as, historically, that factor is germane to any president's legacy. If that were added, the 2010 midterm elections should be included there.

I have read the discussion on length and citations and if the article needs to be split, what would be included here under "Presidency?" I'm willing to do the reorganizing if doing so is agreed upon. I could work on it in my sandbox. Also, is there a standard guideline telling what basic sections to include in the biography of a living person? (Guess I'll go look for that after I post this.) Thoughts and comments? Carmaskid (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals (Solyndra and Fast and Furious)

Why is there no mention of current and ongoing scandals involving the whitehouse, namely Solyndra and Fast and Furious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.159.149 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer is because outside the conservative echo chamber, they're not really scandals. Heck, one thing that isn't mentioned is that the head of the committee who is investigating the Fast and Furious project also received the exact same briefing as the Atterny General at about the same time as Holder, but had no issues with it then. (This is all on record.) So in effect he knew as much as Holder about the project, but choose to ignore that fact and continue a partisan attack. So no they don't need to be mentioned in the personal biography of Barack Obama. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So far there is noting regarding this that would make it relevant to add to a person biography of Obama (Ie cost him the election).--70.24.211.105 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=458537828"