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 217.120.178.21 (talk) at 17:30, 5 February 2012 (→‎Brazil). 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:Stable version

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This discussion is uncannily familiar. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And add a reliable source such as blogger or youtube. 600 empanadas de carne calientes (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[ "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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you take a neutral political stance on the subject matter, you find the "criticism" can only be found in articles and websites that take a particular political stance. It's a very sensationalized topic, and one has to wonder why, in the grand scheme of things, it matters, if only to validate suspicions of a people with a particular political view. Your statement disclosed, perhaps not yours, but definitely, a political viewpoint just by bringing it up as something credible for inclusion. This "criticism" specifically doesn't cut the mustard. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We must trust the power of wikipedia. If there is encyclopedia worthy criticism of Obama, someone who has the know how and the legitimate sources will update the site. There is no conspiracy to keep his page clean. Perhaps after his presidency, legitimate issues that have had ample time to be studied and verified will show up. Just because wikipedia is in real time, doesn't mean every little fault people find with Obama needs to be written. If that were the case all public figures would have extremely long, messy and lop sided articles. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.150.198 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note that there is also a Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates article. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
is this section going to be added? With the recent appointments it would seem even more appropriate. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
never mind, i see these are specific to judicial appointments. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 20 January 2012

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 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)[reply]

Obama self identifies as African American. That's what we use. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that almost all reliable sources use African American and few if any use Mulatto. Also that term is considered offensive in the US so it is defently not the correct term.--69.159.111.241 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. See the answer to the second FAQ (near the top of this page). -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concepts of race and ethnicity are defined socially and culturally and, in the case of federal data collection, by legislative and political necessity (Hayes-Bautista and Chapa, 1987). OMB, for example, states that race and ethnicity categories "are social-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature" (OMB, 1997a). Scientific findings provide empirical evidence that there is more genetic variation within than among racial groups; thus, racial categories do not represent major biological distinctions (Cooper and David, 1986; Williams, 1994; Williams et al., 1994) and instead capture socially constructed intersections of political, historical, legal, and cultural factors. See source: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/iomracereport/reldata1.htm It is cultural now in US to call Mulatto an African-American, so the term "Mulatto" has been outdated and not used anymore in government statistics (see Census 2010). Innab (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bi-Racial is a socially acceptable term. Why do people assume if there is one drop of black blood, the person is therefore black, that is a ridiculous argument to make, and it denies an entire race. So you people here may want to be a shill for obama, but it is a FACT he is NOT the first African American President he is the first Bi-Racial President. Society, Social media and News stations have used the word Bi-Racial. So, the bias of Wiki is apparent, and can no longer be used as authoritative and factually correct. What obama himself identifies himself with is not the issue, it's the facts of his parentage at issue which even he, cannot dispute, his mother was white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostsouls (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Private sector payrol employment image POV

This image comes from his campaign website and is a selective snapshot of favourable data which does not represent the expert consensus of the broader community. It should be removed 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please more specific? I'm afraid there is no such section in this article. Phearson (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OP seems to be referring to File:Private sector jobs dec.jpg in the Economic policy section. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but there needs to be consensus here to remove this picture. I don't see why we should/should not to remove it. Phearson (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why it needs to be removed, but maybe reference needs to be made to the original source of data for the graph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.33.138 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Character or personality of Obama?

This article is an excellent review of events in the President's life. But I wonder; what is the man like? Some may say this is not encyclopedic content, but peeking at the page of the famously moral Cato the Younger reveals this opening paragraph:

Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95 BC, Rome – April 46 BC, Utica), commonly known as Cato the Younger (Cato Minor) to distinguish him from his great-grandfather (Cato the Elder), was a politician and statesman in the late Roman Republic, and a follower of the Stoic philosophy. A noted orator, he is remembered for his stubbornness and tenacity (especially in his lengthy conflict with Julius Caesar), as well as his immunity to bribes, his moral integrity, and his famous distaste for the ubiquitous corruption of the period.

Since we can include personality and character traits of long-passed historical figures, I vote that we do the same for modern historical figures. TheThomas (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because they can sue us, we have to be a lot more careful with biographical material on living persons. If a respected and neutral commentator, with some qualifications in assessing personalities, has made a relevant comment about Obama, it may be able to be included, but pure opinion doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This looks pretty good to fit that bill. Unit for Study of Personalty in Politics. I've read the pages on McCain and Obama, they look neutral and comprehensive. In the page for Ron Paul the authors complained of the time and expense that are spent building these personality profiles, so I trust they are well-supported assertions. Tell me what you think.72.187.98.128 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)TheThomas (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide a number of reliable sources to back the assertion that the president's personality is X, then sure, include it. But, as historians are wont to point out, it is impossible to do objective history like this when the historian lived during the time of the person in question. As such, you're not likely to find that sources agree well enough on Mr. Obama's personality that it would warrant inclusion in the lede. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be easy to find multiple sources saying "Obama is an ambitious man", but I would prefer to find something more potent than a news article stating its opinion of Obama. I think inserting this information in the lead would be overkill. I was not planning to do that. In fact, I would prefer someone else edit this information into the article where they see i as appropriate. This article is beyond my level of writing expertise. This Political Psychology paper mentions many of the same traits as the other I've posted: agreeable, pragmatic, and deliberative. 72.187.98.128 (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cato the Younger is also unusual in that he's primarily remembered for his personality; and he's far enough in the past that there's a clear historical consensus on what his personality was. There's no such consensus on Obama, nor is his personality a particularly big part of what makes him notable. Looking over our other presidents and other articles on modern political leaders, almost none of them devote time to exploring people's perceptions of their personality -- it's just not an important factor (and there's really not going to be any consensus on the personality of any political figure in this US political climate; I see no real point to covering arguments back-and-forth about something like that.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil

Is part of his family from Brazil ? Please dame la pija (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Please dame la pija (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Obama's father was Kenyan, and his mother was American with mostly English heritage. To a lesser extent, she had Irish, Welsh, and German heritage. No Brazilian connection anywhere. 217.120.178.21 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite Animal

According to Politico, Barack Obama cited that his favorite animal was the egret, a type of white heron. I think that this is an important addition as it may give school children a research topic.

Sources: - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72167.html - In dreams of my father, Obama describes seeing an egret for the first time with his father and he states "[egrets] embody [the] spiritual freedom ... of the formerly subdued" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.186.30 (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heading: Libya → Ghaddafi

The title Gaddafi is better because intervention ended with Gaddafi's death, and most intervention consisted of targeting Gaddafi. Its also been discussed here. Pass a Method talk 08:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I changed it back to Libya once already and the brief discussion linked above ensued. The section is about US involvement in the 2011 military intervention in Libya, and it is true that Ghaddafi was the leader of Libya. However, changing the title gives undue weight to that fact by implying that the purposes of the military action was to target Ghaddafi. The claim made (on my talk page, linked above) that US military intervention ended with Ghaddafi's death is not stated anywhere in the section. If the implication I refer to, or the claim made on my talk page can be supported by references, that is a different story, although the section is still about overall intervention, not a single person.  Frank  |  talk  13:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've just changed it back to "Libya" as well. The section refers to US activities in Libya in general, in contrast to the section on Bin Laden, for example. Since this has been changed back twice now, I hope it will not be changed again until a consensus has been reached for doing so on this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Video of Obama as Harvard Law Review Editor

Propose the following as the third sentence in paragraph 2 of "Chicago community organizer and Harvard Law School."

As an editor, Obama delivered a Black History Minutes segment televised by TBS.[1]

The citation is this. Badams5115 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Meg Gasvoda (Nov 17, 2011). "Early video of Obama surfaces from Harvard Law School era". Retrieved Feb 1, 2012. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=475250586"