Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

"Controversy" and "Criticism"

How is it that controversy and criticism hardly appear in this article. This president has one of the most extreme policy agendas and is largely devoid of any substance. If the purpose of Wikipedia articles is for a fair and balanced picture (NPOV) I think a bit more attention to the alternate points of view on this president should be included. See George W. Bush's article and search for "criti" or "controv" and you'll find a much more complete record. 70.26.39.203 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have specific, concrete suggestions with supporting reliable sources, then suggest them. The changes you wish to see here won't happen if no one actually proposes any changes. Coming and complaining with no actual concrete suggestion will not result in any change to the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Not one I share. I am neither well versed in Wikipedia nor do I have the time to devote to that. However I do know that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. I also assume (which is a reasonable assumption) that this page is watched by hundreds if not thousands of people). My contribution to this issue is pointing out that there appears to be a disconnect between this article and reality, especially given the grade this article gets. I invite others to weigh in on this issue. Not going to work and making concrete changes does nothing to alter the validity of my point. Some are like water some are like the heat, some are the melody and some are the beat. I don't have the time or motivation to change it, but given how important this article is I am sure other contributors can now that the issue has been raised. 70.26.39.203 (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is uncannily familiar. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For a good example of how much criticism needs to be in an article on a controversial figure, see Noam Chomsky. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia articles used to be "fair and balanced", but since the meaning of that phrase has changed to mean "extreme right batshit insane opinion machine" we've adopted "neutral and appropriately weighted". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

70.26.39.203: Please be specific. What is the most glaring omission in your opinion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And add a reliable source such as blogger or youtube. 600 empanadas de carne calientes (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[ "This president has one of the most extreme policy agendas and is largely devoid of any substance." ] Do you actually not realize that that ISN'T a neutral statement? 207.237.209.237 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's start with criticisms of his health care plan, the handling of the assassination of Bin Laden, and military strikes in 3 countries without congressional approval. 174.52.9.91 (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is an article about Obama, not an article about criticism of Obama. You can write well sourced facts about his health care plan, Bin Laden's death, and the military strikes, but once you start writing what other people thought about those things you're off-topic. (And opening a massive can of worms.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, three is criticism all over George W. Bush's page that falls under what you would categorize as "off-topic" yet it was a good article. I completely disagree with you and think it is absolutely on topic to discuss the criticism of his policies and actions in as much excruciating detail as has been done on George's page. There has been boat loads of it from reliable sources, and if you want specific examples I would be more than happy to give you a long list of accomplished media outlets that have criticized ; yet it has all miraculously managed to stay out of this article. I don't think we should make a criticism section, I think we should add these criticisms to their respective sections to keep the article coherent and NPOV.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure we could find boat loads of criticism, and therein lies another problem. How would we decide how many boat loads to include? AND PLEASE DON'T TOUCH OTHER EDITORS' POSTS. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something in the article, it's not as though there are praises of the man put in there either. By which I mean I don't see anything like "many claimed x policy to be the greatest thing ever." I definitely could see notable reactions, positive or negative, to specific policy initiatives in the sub article about his presidency. I could even see strictly factual information such as popular opinion polls about a particular issue, but even then I would tend to think that should be on the article about his presidency not his biography. Bottom line, whatever is added should be verifiable facts and not opinions (whether they be the editors' opinions or quoting another person's opinion). For instance, verifiable information that a particular policy had a particular result (be it negative or positive) would be acceptable, but a pundit or blog simply saying "this policy sucks" would not be acceptable.Jdlund (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC).

This article is poorly written in general and that's unfortunate considering the subject is the current President of the United States, however i'll keep my comments germane to the issue of this objection. For Wikipedia to remain relevant it needs to be NPOV. We have to take our personal politics out of it. Anyone doing an honest comparison of the Obama article to that of almost any dead or living political figure has to admit the former is blatantly lacking any mention of well documented criticism and/or opposition. I could list many but let's see if we can achieve honest consensus on a few easy points. If you're discussing Obama's legislative record you should mention he has been criticized for 130 "present" votes in the Illinois State Senate. In the Health Care Reform section it absolutely needs to be noted that the bill was passed while all major polls showed opposition from a majority of Americans. It also needs to be mentioned that the constitutionality of the bill is scheduled to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Let's just start there, although there should be mention of Tony Rezko, Van Jones, Obama's refusal to release academic records, Solyndra, comments about Israeli borders, involvement in Libyan conflict without congressional approval, etc. Falcon50c 12:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not keeping your personal politics out of it very well at all when you use language like "Obama's refusal to release academic records". That's journalistic sensationalism, pretty obviously POV driven, rather than objective language suitable for an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A statement of fact cannot be sensationalism. If you prefer a gentler word than "refusal" then by all means use an alternate, but my statement disclosed no point of view at all. Unfortunately, it's obvious your primary concern is not the quality of this Wikipedia article, and that's happening much too often. Falcon50c 02:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article about this Wikipedia article?

I know this may sound a bit mad, but stick with me.....

As the top of the talk page points out, this article has been cited by no fewer than fourteen different media organisations. Big ones, too: CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, etc. etc. Doesn't that then mean that there are sufficiently enough non-trival mentions from reliable sources that we could theoretically write a Wikipedia article about this Wikipedia article? I'm sure that I've seen articles get passed through WP:N with considerably fewer sources on their subjects... I know it might seem like quite an odd thing for an encyclopedia for write an article about, but let's not forget that we also have an article about buttered cats. 86.168.92.16 (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, largely because it would make absolutely no sense. You'd just be repeating this article or having list of media outlets that have cited it. Either option would be pointless. I could see if maybe there was a significant controversy surrounding the article or some reason to talk about it other than "hey it's been cited x number of times." There have been some I know who throw this article around as an example of Wikipedia bias, but it's nowhere near enough of a viable topic to warrant its own article somehow. Just because there are other pointless articles (seriously buttered cats? That's a new one for me) doesn't justify writing another one that would honestly just be a list of citations without any real reason for having said list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree we need something more than the media have mentioned the article. We would need something more important like the Wikipedia biography controversy which caused a lot of negative reactions and according to the article one of the main reasons for the creation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Nothing like that has yet to happen.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Cites to the various articles could be mentioned at Wikipedia:Press coverage, if they aren't already there. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Non original teeth

From the most recent Obama video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyjkVAgRFRk you can see that the president has got too bright white color teeth, see also the shape and the structure of the teeth. For me it suggests that he has got only denture. It should be good for the article if somebody could obtain an official medical report of the president's teeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.188.14 (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. That video is not enough evidence to launch such a request for this article. Doc talk 12:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were proven, why would that be important in this article? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Such a "fact" would not only be non-notable. It would be totally irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Judicial appointments

Several other recent Presidents have a separate heading in their article for judicial appointments. I would suggest pulling out the Sotomayor and Kagan appointments from the "Domestic policy" section and putting them in their own section (perhaps with additional information on appointments to lower courts). —DavidConrad (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. George H. W. Bush also only had 2 nominations and his article has a separate section, as well as a spinout to George H. W. Bush Supreme Court candidates. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that there is also a Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates article. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NDAA

Obama Signed NDAA. Should be mentioned in the article.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that is something done by every president every year, the notability of the 2011 one needs to be justified. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What would get mentioned is if he hadn't signed it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The American Civil Liberties Union stated that “President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”

The listing of every press release from the ACLU about a politicians actions would probably not meet neutral point of view guidelines. It may however prove useful as a reference on the specific article about the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How is Obama "African" if he was born in America?

no idea where the "bias" is. For everything else, see FAQ Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shouldn't he just be "American" What is African about President Obama? He was born in Hawaii right? So he's American. I understand it is socially wrong to be racist against any race except whites, and it is always okay to be bias and for any other race especially that of African descent, but really, this is Wikipedia. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unbias and fair? If I am a black man and I am married to a white woman, and I have a child, that child is not "black" or African American, that child is mixed race, and if that child is born in America, he or she is "American" One is African American if he or she was born in and came from Africa to become American. Please, put aside your anti-white racist bias ways, stop preaching for unbias ideas while doing bias things, walk the walk if you are going to talk the talk, and be fair. If you don't, I hope someone with the money to sues Wikipedia for allowing this bias trash to continue. President Obama is not black, he is not African American, he is mixed race and he is American. use logic instead of social brainwashing to write your articles. 50.47.145.163 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The African American thing, and our reaction to it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think we need to be careful. Some of the attempts to argue this are a bit silly, but the hidden discussion above is a telling one. The USA is far more concerned with racial issues than many countries, certainly more than mine, so it demands racial descriptors, where other countries may not even bother with them. African American is the current politically correct alternative to the now totally unacceptable Negro or nigger. In its own way, it's no less racist. It's just the current nice way of describing the same people. While not being as diplomatic as he may have been, the poster in that now hidden discussion was saying that he would prefer everyone to be just called American, rather than having racial labels. I tend to agree with him.

His post may have looked like one of not understanding. I think he understood very well.

Rather than simply jumping on these posters and hiding or deleting their comments, a little engagement may go a long way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would go the opposite way; just hat the convo, point to the FAQ, no dialog. All that winds up happening when this is engaged is tempers start to flare from dealing with it for the nth time. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So an American who would prefer that America was less obsessed with race issues is to be ignored? Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression the person you're referring to is quite obsessed indeed. He accuses editors of "anti-white bias", for example. So what do you propose in terms of improving this article? Do you suggest removing all references to Obama's race? szyslak (t) 22:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What he, you, or I prefer has no real bearing on an an encyclopedia project, though, does it? The term "African-American" is a socio-political construct, not necessarily a literal description of one's lineage (though it can also be that). That is a fact of American culture. As long as the subject describes himself with this term and the majority or sourced material does as well, that is simply what we must use in the article. While holding a discussion of race identity might be quite informative, it is really beyond the scope of an encyclopedia page of an African-American politician to do so. All of these "do'nt call him A-A cause he's really biracial" comments may have a ring of literal truth behind them, but it isn't our place to adjudicate that. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Another point is that all sentient beings in the US (and many other places) know that "African American" is the appropriate description. Accordingly, and given the nature of many comments from new users on this page, it is hard to tell the difference between honest confusion ("why is Obama described that way?") and trolling. This is not the place to educate passers by. Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely absurd that you are claiming that African American is 'no less racist' ..than 'Negro' or 'nigger'. And to then claim the anon ip just wants a less race obsessed America, even while the aonon ip claims an "anti-white racist bias" while threatening to sue Wikipedia is just too much. Too much. I usually respect your opinions, even if I disagree, but this is just beyond absurd. The thread above should have been removed, not hatted. I tend to want to keep threads rather than delete because of record keeping, but it adds absolutely nothing and violates Wiki policies. Engage this type of tripe? I think not. Dave Dial (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have said racial, rather than racist, but I still think you missed my point. African American describes exactly the same people as Negro. It's just currently accepted as the nicer term. I also agree with you that the anon IP editor was way over the top with his post. I just see a hint of censorship, and certainly more political correctness, in the abruptness with which these issues are handled here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY all nonsense about whether Obama is black or white should be removed (deleted, not hatted) as indistinguishable from trolling. Debating the disruption is just causing the trolls to laugh, and guaranteeing their invigorated participation here in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY is all about vandalism. That's not what this is about. Vandals go straight to the article and screw it up. This is a place for discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, when you accuse people of "censorship", you're not assuming good faith. Those who hat stale discussions and remove trolling do so not because they want to silence discussion of this or any other issue, but because such threads are disruptive, they don't help us build an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a forum. If we devoted our time and energy to explaining the same thing over and over again, we'll never get anything done. Whether you like it or not, it is highly significant to a great majority of people that Barack Obama is the first African-American President, just as it's highly significant that your own Julia Gillard is Australia's first woman prime minister. This reflects significant facts of history, not Americans' "obsession" with race. I'm sorry the article's mentioning his racial background makes you uncomfortable, but these are the facts of the world. szyslak (t) 04:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I must be a poor writer. People keep misunderstanding what I'm saying. I too think it's highly significant that Barack Obama is the first African-American President. I've never said otherwise. And I think you need to be more careful with your own choice of words. Of course those who hat stale discussions and remove trolling do it because they want to silence those particular discussions. They want to silence those discussions because they believe such threads are disruptive. That's a valid point of view. I feel differently. I would be willing to respond to posters with different views on the African American thing. I don't feel "disrupted" by it. Why should I be prevented from discussing it just because you see it as a waste of time? HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. So take it to your own talkpage, and politely discuss why anyone who disagrees with the trolling IP is an anti-white racist bigot. This talkpage isn't the place for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Now is the time to stop responding to this and move on. Dave Dial (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles

I noticed that a hidden category was added to this article placing it to the Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles. While on the face of it, it seems innocent and also worth while. However, this article sees a lot of people looking to push their POV into it. This is one of the main reasons why it is semi-protected and also is on article probation. This sort of feedback mechanism on this specific page will most assuredly be gamed by those very same people wanting to push their POV. Consequently, feedback from that survey would be tainted by responders bias and would be considered unreliable or not truly representative of the entire Wikipedia reader community. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2012

I request this line be edited: "Barack Hussein Obama II (Listeni/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office.

Barack Hussein Obama's mother was white, and his father was African American (black)

The correct terminology is "Mulatto" So, it should read that he is the first Mulatto to hold the office. Mixed or Bi-Racial is also acceptable, Bi-Racial preferred.

His mother was white, why is obama's white heritage not reported?? According to your own Wiki, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto This is the definition of obama's racial background. So to be correct and accurate, obama's true race should be input into the wiki, not denying one race or the other.

Ghostsouls (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)