Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Talk page info

Obama Nobel prize

From the article:

Obama's Nobel Prize has been viewed skeptically in subsequent years, especially after the director of the Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, said Obama's Peace Prize was a "failure"

This suggests that the director of the Nobel Institute feels that Obama is undeserving of the award, while the referenced article actually states that the director expected the honor to deliver a boost to Obama, something he believes did not happen. In other words its a failure of the award to boost Obama, not a failure of Obama as the Wikipedia article seems to suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.151.2 (talk) 14:21, November 29, 2015

 Done. Changed to "did not achieve desired effect". I didn't feel it was necessary to explain any further. The reader can now investigate what "the desired effect" was. At least the article no longer implies that awarding the Prize to Obama was "a failure". Buster Seven Talk 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Building a coherent history

First off, thanks to the editors who crafted a lot of great narrative content, especially the well-rounded lead.

As this page has grown and his presidency has encompassed everything a president does (speeches, policies, elections, and so on), it seems to have lost a good narrative flow. It's unfortunately not the Featured Article it was on the day of his election. Specifically, there's not a particularly cohesive narrative of his presidency. There's a long list of policy views and actions, but not a general history. This leads to a feeling that it's disconnected. I’ll note that Presidency of Barack Obama doesn’t have a cohesive narrative either, instead compromising several lists and a bunch of separate policy areas. Work on this page can carry over to that one.

As a model article I will point to Bill Clinton (and Hillary Clinton, although she’s not yet a president). The section on his presidency blends his political story, his personal quirks, his policy achievements (and failures), his overall effect on the country, and the broader context in which his presidency occurred, in a reasonably easy-to-follow way. The only section dedicated to particular policies (“Military and foreign events”) is a cohesive and roughly chronological account.

What would be great is a 10+ paragraph walkthrough of the general course of Obama’s presidency: the ups and downs, the major initiatives (Obamacare and rebooting the economy in particular). Imagine if you want to read for 5 minutes about what he's done. It's not feasible to peruse through a dozen different sections on his energy, Iraq, health care, LGBT, immigration, etc. positions. That would be difficult to follow. The intricate details of his policy achievements are better suited to in-depth articles like Barack Obama social policy. Elevating the most notable accomplishments and trimming the others allows this article to stay reasonably-sized and engaging.

The way I think about it is as a biography: when you look back at the overall term, what are the most important bits and what is your general impression? Now condense that into an article for a general audience. The smaller initiatives aren't going to be defining aspects of his legacy. A good biography is going to include a well-balanced account from start to finish, mentioning landmark achievements, his biggest thematic priorities (and unsuccessful efforts), and all the other things swirling around, some of which are out of his control. Important aspects of his meta-presidency include the slow but steady economic growth, continued instability in the Middle East alongside the rise of ISIS, increasing public support for LGBT rights (helping him in 2012), a bigger and more heated focus on race relations, and the loss of Democratic majorities alongside increasingly stark political partisanship (see Tea Party). Many of these things are consequences of deeper trends, but he played a role in shaping or responding to each. You can't remove a person from their historical context.

It's also worth addressing the contrast between the campaign ideal of "Yes We Can" (political unity and racial solidarity), and the actual history. While we elected an African-American president, we didn't solve our deep-seated racial conundrums. Again, this is not his fault, but it's an important theme to explore.

And it's got to be chronological. A biography doesn't jump from topic to topic in each new chapter.

This is the general idea. I'll work on something but these things are always a collaborative effort.

This is an article tens of millions of people have read or will read and I’m excited to make it better. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Two things I would say here. First, this is a summary style article. That means it is essentially a summary of a lot of child articles (and for Obama, there are a lot). With that in mind, it is usually better to get the child articles right first and then summarize their content here. Of course that can make it difficult to weave it into a cohesive narrative, and that brings me to my second point. "Narratives" that tell a story, rather than simply describe events separately, have a tendency to approach or cross a line into synthesis. Any recasting of this article needs to take these two things into account, although I certainly think the goal is laudable. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, and those are both good points. I'm confident this can be a summary style article without devolving into listiness. Bill Clinton weaves together the various components of his presidency into something coherent. Second, there are established narratives that we can follow along with. Britannica, which remains by all means the model for a well-writen, expert encyclopedia, has already chronicled the 7 year history in a cohesive summary. Its general partitioning and themes would be a good inspiration for this narrative. The biographies that will be released in 2017 and beyond will provide solid historical accounts.

I will add that a good narrative will be informative enough to provide an effective summary. A good historical account (such as that of, say, the World War II will serve as a branching-off point for various sub-articles. But it will do so in a way that aids reader comprehension rather than jarring them with a laundry list of disparate topics. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2016

Dachshund man (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 00:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016

hi, im jayjaysofly1 and i just want permission to change his birthday every year, (age not the actual day.) And i would also like part ownership of this page... Only about 5%

Thats all thank you... please respond asap.Jayjaysofly1 (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to manually update his age every year the software takes care of it automatically. No one has any ownership in any article, so no you can not have ownership of this article. -- GB fan 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016

President Obama should not be referred to as the first African American President of the United States, but rather as the first Black president of the United States or as the first U.S. president of African descent, as Pres. Obama is not African American, but rather Kenyan and Anglo, German, Irish, Welsh, Swiss, and Scottish- his father was an immigrant from Kenya and his mother a white woman of mixed European ancestry from Kansas. African American is an ethnic group exclusive to the United States that is made up of the descendants of African slaves brought across the Atlantic from West Africa during the Transatlantic Slave Trade, which lasted from the 16th to the 19th century. Though African Americans and President Obama both share African ancestry, African Americans alive today trace their ancestry back at least 100 years, while President Obama traces his ancestry back with his father. Yoyo itszozo (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We report how reliable sources refer to him, even if other sources make a distinction between the terms. We would need multiple other sources that say he's not African American but rather Black. (On a side note, Eisenhower is arguably the first Black president if we're going by heritage and contemporaneous racial categories). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You should also read the Frequently asked questions at the top of the page. The consensus is against this change. -- GB fan 23:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Go to "For more information click [show]" and click "show" on that line. Then go to Q2 and click "show" on that line. SMP0328. (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyo itszozo (talk • contribs) 13:04, February 6, 2016‎

References

Syria

I can't find anything about Syria in the "Foreign Policy" section. That seems like a fairly glaring omission, doesn't it? I think I may want to add one. Display name 99 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a summary style article. What we would normally do is write something like this up in Presidency of Barack Obama and then, if appropriate, briefly summarize it here. Having a Syria only section is probably an example of undue weight, but certainly as part of the broader Middle East issues it is worth looking at. That approach has already been taken here, but it looks difficult to summarize. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I wrote a section on Syria and added it to the article. I tried to stay succinct and to limit its scope to what seems most relevant to Obama. CometEncke (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff. I've trimmed, reorganized and copyedited it a little. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you took out the part about the commander being kidnapped by al Nusra. I was undecided about that one, and I won't say you're wrong. I do think something needs to be said about what happened with the US effort. We shouldn't just leave it hanging. I'll make another try at that shortly.CometEncke (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Assuming one of those sources backs up "minimal results" (I haven't checked), that looks much better. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Controversial tag

I recently added the {{controversial}} tag to the article, because he has been the subject of significant controversy. The tags are on the articles of several recent presidents (Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and both Bushes). It was surprising when the tag wasn't on Clinton's article, due to the Lewinsky scandal, or even the Obama article, because Barack Obama is nowhere near as controversial as Bill Clinton however has generated some controversy (the citizenship controversy). MB298 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That's your point of view. Others' point of view may be that all of the controversy has been manufactured by political opponents. If you know that you have a point of view that is generally opposing the view of the subject of the article, then please remember that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and that we must put aside our own points of view while writing it. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not generally opposed to the policies of Barack Obama, just see Category:Obama administration controversies. It includes 56 in that category, with 4 subcategories. Ronald Reagan, who is tagged as "controversial", has 37 pages and 1 subcategory. Jimmy Carter, also tagged as "controversial", has exactly 9 pages in the category. It should be generally accepted that all recent U.S. Presidents are controversial. On Wikipedia:List of controversial issues, Barack Obama is listed. MB298 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The {{controversial}} tag is a perfectly acceptable tag to placed on the talkpage of controversial subjects (which Barack Obama is). Ordinarily, I would have absolutely no objection to it; however, this talk page already has tags noting it falls under article probabtion, that it is not a forum, that it is a biography of a living person, and that it is about an active politician. We have even setup a comprehensive FAQ to address the most controversial issues. All these combined render the {{controversial}} tag redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection, I appreciate MB298's reply, and I greatly appreciate Scjessey's well-stated reply. The tag should probably not appear (unless others wish to state better reasons to keep it). Best, Prhartcom (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article barely mention anything critical about Obama?

When I for example view the German Wikipedia page about Barack Obama it mentions the global surveillance disclosures or how under Obama the drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan continued and even got enlarged.

Also that under Barack Obama despite what he expressed before his first election, that he admires whistleblower as "valuable source" for information about government misconduct and promised to increase transparency of government actions, that despite these statements during his presidency more whistleblower got sued under the anti-espionage law from 1917 (which includes the death-sentence as punishment) than under all US presidents before him.

Is it because admins or some admins are trying to frustrate any attempt on the article about Barack Obama to be more balanced, or what are the reasons that this article barely highlights anything more than in a superficial light?

Also seriously under "Cybersecurity and Internet policy" the main part: "On February 12, 2013, President Obama signed Executive Order 13636, "Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity". The Executive Order is designed to increase the level of core capabilities for our critical infrastructure to manage cyber risk. It does this by focusing on three key areas: (1) information sharing, (2) privacy, and (3) the adoption of cybersecurity practices." Is directly taken from the source of the whitehouse, "The executive order is designed to increase the level of core capabilities for OUR critical infrastructure to manage cyber risk. (...) really? I mean really? Does it get any more biased and obvious? Dasnewhome (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

See Presidency of Barack Obama, Barack Obama on mass surveillance, etc. If all of this was included in the main article (this one), it would be prohibitively large. clpo13_(talk) 20:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a good point, but just that some people may still consider some changes. The Article about former President George W. Bush includes the word 'critics' 10 times, whereas the word 'critics' isn't even mentioned once in the Article about Barack Obama.

And the Article about George W. Bush also includes many sub-topics (or however you call them) with hyperlinks to the main articles about for example "Interrogation policies See also: Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture" so certainly this would also be applicable here Dasnewhome (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)