Jump to content

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 69.236.186.178 (talk) at 16:12, 18 November 2011 (→‎Israel/Palestine). 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

No mention of Obama's Civil Rights Law Practice

Obama's Civil Rights Law practice is something he was particularly proud of, and historically will position him as a president, but it is a curious omission that absolutely no mention is made of it in this encyclopedia entry? (see video of excerpted interview below at 2:10 below) "(I) started my Civil Rights Practice representing women and minorities- workers who had been discriminated against on the job" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b91nsPDQFUk

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]

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]
It's true that we shouldn't use the "II" just on the basis of his birth certificate. Does he ever use it today? —Designate (talk) 03:32, 5 November 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]

I actually prefer the order as it is at the moment. First it chronicles his career (the most notable aspect) in chronological order, then how he is perceived, and finally his personal life. The current order is logical. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that all information on his personal life should be grouped together, rather than beginning and ending the article, but I'm willing to go with the flow.Carmaskid (talk) 02:32, 3 November 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]
It's not wikipedia's purpose to try to influence candidates winning or losing elections. Instead, it is wikipedia's purpose to present readers with reliably sourced, notable information. Therefore, I propose that the following be added to the article:
In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals.[1]
The Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign, and that the company had also spent a large sum of money on lobbying.[2]
173.75.156.141 (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a biographical article about Obama, not an article about the Obama administration (meaning, the entire executive branch of the US government during the Obama administration), there would have to be some sourcing that this is biographically relevant and significant enough to include. Every US President has one or more scandals running concurrently (or controversies, or attacks and complaints by the political opposition, whatever you would call it), some lasting a day or a week, but very few about which you could say that it's a part of their life story. If you were to write a 500-page book about Obama five or ten or fifty years from now, how many paragraphs would be devoted to his involvement in Solyndra or Fast and Furious? Probably zero to three, unless it turned out to become his political undoing, something that seems very unlikely and that we won't know for some time yet. Now consider that this bio is about 10-20 pages long, not 500, so you have very little room. If that went in, something else would have to come out. Moreover, it would have to be written in a neutral tone, not in the voice of the opposition's accusation by inference or the political pundits' coverage of the same. If you were to pose a similar question a few months ago there were probably a few other scandals then that are largely forgotten. So the short answer is there just isn't enough room for minor things, and no sourcing that this is anything but an ephemeral political grievance. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactaly, we should wait to see if anything significant happens to him first due to these events. Examples can range from Obama being impeached over this, he resignes, he loses the next election and there is compelling evidence that these events were a major factor in the defeat. So far nothing of this nature has occurred.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Hi everyone. I posted this on Dr.K.'s talk page, but he/she refused to just offer this there and insisted I bring here so the experts could weight in. Anyway, I'm just curious, I might have missed something but why did he/she remove that from this article, I personally didn't like the section title but the section itself seemed well sourced with reliable sources. Maybe you can offer up some clarification. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 03:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Grundle2600 sock, who's banned from editing. Previous sock here [5]. Acroterion (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Dr.K. can explain his rationale for removing the section, but I suspect it is similar to the reason that I've blocked the editor who posted it. Because this is a returning POV warrior who has been creating new accounts, getting them autoconfirmed, and then adding this same ridiculous attack section with the same ridiculous edit summary and the same ridiculous section title. I don't understand how anyone could think that section is appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Floquenbeam and Acroterion. You answered in the usual expert and competent way that I have come to expect from experts. I cannot add anything more. I am also glad that after a brief edit-war on my talk User:CR90 was finally persuaded to come and ask the experts at this article talk and share the discussion with the maximum number of editors for the greater benefit of the encyclopaedia, instead of confining the conversation to my talk with its limited audience. As for my reasons for reverting the sock and their edits, let's just say I have developed a feel for it. Although I have to admit that this time was a bit more obvious than other times. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't justify the past actions of the user, and looking at the removed passage, some of is is not neutral, however I am seeing a lot of referenced information. Surely some of that can be salvaged?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usually sock edits no matter how good are reverted mercilessly. But if you think you can salvage something please talk to the experts on this talk. This was my original intent anyway. To bring this issue here to be handled in the most efficient and expert manner. With this I bid everyone goodbye. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to salvage. It is an idiot laundry list of fringe criticisms that Grundle2600 has been trying to paste into various Obama-related article for the past year. Yes, year. This is a persistent, vile, community-banned little troll. Just being sourced is never a sole criteria for adding material to an article, this particular passage has been discussed to death at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, all i nthe archives section there. Tarc (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having already said my goodbyes it is rather unusual for me to return so quickly. But I briefly came back to thank Tarc for their most illuminating comments. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are these things "fringe criticisms"?

[redacted]

Too much. If you wish to propose the addition of an individual item here, feel free to do so, with sources, and reasons why it is significant enough to add. Trying to add a long list of criticisms all at once is simply not appropriate. In fact, I see little value at all in adding any criticism. See Noam Chomsky for an article with a good amount of criticism. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama is not African-American

Just wanted to point out that Obama isn't African-American. African-American refers to the people whose descendants were traded in the slave trade, mostly in West Africa. His mother is white and born in the states. His father is black and was born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii. Obama has no claims to african-american heritage. Rather, he is Kenyan-American. He is black, but not african-american. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.184.254 (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Talk:Barack Obama#first african american president above. Surely we're not going to label people here according to perceived skin colour. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is not our job to go against virtually all reliable sources have said and that is that he is African-American. Also do you have any reliable sources that only descendants of the slave trade are allowed be called African-American because if not your position would be considered original research and likely not be given much consideration especially since reliable sources have called him African-American.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that Kenya is an African country and that all immigrants to the USA from Kenya would indeed still be called African-American and their children would still be African-American even if half European-American? Alatari (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Q2 on Barack Obama/FAQ.--JayJasper (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Fast And Furious" Just Might Be President Obama's Watergate, Forbes, September 28, 2011
  2. ^ Bankrupt solar company with fed backing has cozy ties to Obama admin, The Daily Caller, September 1, 2011
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=461292098"