Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 82

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

No link to the United States

Hi, is it intended that there does not exist a single direct link to the wikipedia page of the US? If not, could we add one? FS100 (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's probably intentional per a guidance called MOS:OVERLINK. Basically, we expect readers of this article to now about US already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Nah, more likely a simple error, we don't "expect" or "assume" that. Anyway there be a link now. Vsmith (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:... The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar..." It sounds to me like we do, but either works. And one can of course argue that the US is particularly relevant to this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No mention of death of Justice Scalia, nomination of Merrick Garland

It seems strange to me that there is no mention of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dying in Feb. 2016, Mitch McConnell announcing the same day that Senate Republicans would not consider any Obama nominee to replace Scalia, or Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland about a month later. It seems to me a mention of the events, with at least a link to the Merrick Garland page, would be appropriate. Virago2 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on if it should be in this article, but I see it's mentioned in Presidency of Barack Obama. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

And that's where it belongs. Neither the death of someone else, nor Republicans being political bastards, are biographical information about Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hatnote

Please restore the direct hatnote link to his father, as it was before this edit. 46.116.191.224 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Question: Hey MZMcBride could you help and explained why you tweaked the hatnote? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Hatnotes should generally be pretty short, in my opinion. I don't think there's any need to link to his father in such a prominent place. Very few people searching for "Barack Obama" are looking for Barack Obama Sr. If they are, they can click one of the two disambiguation links we provide. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone think the foreign policy section is too long?

I find it well-written and carefully sifted through personally. - Informant16 14 May 2018

This page is for improvements in the article, not personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.152 (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Education section needs to show Obama's Master Degree in Economics and Doctorate from Harvard.

Why is Barack Obama's Higher Education degrees left blank? His Masters degree in Economics? His Doctorate in Law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.145.67 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing the former President with his father; the elder Obama was the one with the Masters in Economics. The younger Obama's postgraduate education is described under "Law Career" section. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2019

President Obama was President from Jan 2008 to Jan 20, 2016. You have it at 2017. 2606:A000:4112:3800:9510:5A28:3030:CC95 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: he was elected in 2008, but took office in 2009. He's successor was elected in 2016, but Obama officially left office in 2017 DannyS712 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination dates of federal judges

A discussion is underway at Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump/Archive 2#Ordering of pending nominations. Interested editors may want to comment. — JFG ^talk 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Barack Obama was the first African American elected to the presidency should not be in the second sentence of the lead

The opening sentence of the lead contains the following words: "he was the first African American to be elected to the presidency." That information should not be in the opening paragraph of the lead for several reasons. First off, the statement is confusing because "first" means that someone followed him, which is false information. Second, the fact that Obama is black is irrelevant to the presidency. The office of the president hinges on talent, character, integrity, and courage, not race. No other presidential article gives high priority to the person's country or continent of ancestry. The lead of JFK's article doesn't mention that he was the first Catholic president or first president of Irish descent.

It's OK to discuss Obama's ancestry in the text of the article but not in lead. As I just mentioned, descent and ancestry are irrelevant to the office of the president, and the issue deserves limited discussion anywhere in the article.Anthony22 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"First" doesn't imply that there is a second, IMO. And the lead section (though not necessarily the lead sentence) on John F Kennedy should mention that he was the first Catholic elected president. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

There is very little chance of confusion, and "was the first" doesn't mean anything other than "was the first." There may very possibly be a second, and/or a third, but "was the first" will continue to be true whether or not there is another. It is a notable fact about this president that belongs in the lead. General Ization ^Talk 02:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows mainstream sources, not cutting-edge liberal sources. Someday it will be wrong to point out Obama's African-American ethnicity, but not today. Or tomorrow. YoPienso (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

What Yopienso said. At this point it is in the first sentence of everything written about him - and someday it will be in the first sentence of his obituary. Yes, in theoretical terms it should not matter, but it does in the world we currently live it. Someday there will be a woman president, and "first woman president" will be the lead sentence in her biography for the rest of her life. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. "First Catholic" may not be in the first paragraph of JFK's lead, but it is in the second paragraph. Also, please check out the lead paragraphs of Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Connor. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

His race mattered, and he said so himself ([1]). It is wrong (and imho offensive) to try to erase that. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've seen identical changes from "first" to "only" before, with the same claim that "first" requires a second. Such a strange, faulty inference that I'm guessing it was the same editor. Whether we like it or not, non-white race or non-male gender are considered an important characteristic for many. In this case the fact that Obama' is the first of his racial background to be American President is so widely reported .that it would actually be odd if we didn't include that. So, no to changing it to "only", and yes to keeping the "first".

As for whether it needs to be in the first paragraph, I think it should stay. The first paragraph of the lead of Hilary Clinton mentions that she was the first female nominee for President by a major party. .The second paragraph mentions two more "first female"s (chair of Legal Services Corporation and partner at Rose Law Firm). The third lead paragraph has yet another "first female" ( Senator from New York). Meters (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Drone strikes

The previous version of the article claimed that Obama used drone strikes "against Islamist militants". But that statement was not sourced. If you read Obama's speech on drone strikes and official policy paper, there is no reference to targetting "Islamist militants". I have added a source confirming that Obama substantially escalated the use of drone strikes, so I propose we leave it at that neutral statement.PluniaZ (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ve added language/ref to qualify the strikes so he is not portrayed as an indiscriminate genocidal maniac. soibangla (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I rephrased it slightly.PluniaZ (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition "African American"

Rehashed WP:OR. Editors' personal opinions and "logic" won't change what WP:RS say and won't override WP:EGRS. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From the "African American" Wikipedia entry: "According to U.S. Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (≈95%)." [...] "In 2008, Barack Obama became the first African American to be elected President of the United States." His father was an immigrant from Kenya, his mother was white. So how does this make him an "African American"? --92.217.221.205 (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC) That quote is talking about how immigrants describe themselves. Obama's father was an immigrant so it would imply that he probably wouldn't have described himself as an African American but it doesn't say he wouldn't describe himself as an African American. Obama is not an immigrant, so those statistics do not apply to Obama at all. The most important thing is that Obama and the reliable sources describe him as an African American. We go by what the reliable sources say about him, not some interpretation of a source that doesn't even apply to him. ~ GB fan 11:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC) +1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Obummer's mother was white; his father was black. It should be indicated in the introduction that he is of mixed race/bi-racial, rather than "African-American/black." Such a claim is false, regardless of whether his father came from, or where Obummer was born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.254.1.7 (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Please take your obsession with race and silly insulting names somewhere else. As you have already been told up above, we go by what the reliable sources say about him. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC) 192.254.1.7 (above) actually makes a good point and the question of Barrack Obama's true race should be taken seriously for this article. It would seem logical that Obama's father being an African from Kenya and not an American citizen would certainly not include his son as being 'African-American'... there was no "American" part of his father. It would therefore be better for this article in the interest of being concise to probably refer to Barack Obama as the first half-white President and not the first "African" American President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A845:CD00:DDF1:ABB4:712A:27A1 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC) After the reliable sources stop referring to him as an African American, then we can discuss how we should reword the article. Until that happens we use what the reliable sources use and that is African American. ~ GB fan 10:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Obama is mixed. He's the first mixed president. He's not an African America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Sullivan 1997 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC) "True race", huh. See also Q2 in the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC) African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. But Obama does self-identify as African America. (He's also the child of an immigrant, not an immigrant, so it's less surprising.) Guettarda (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

Born: August 4, 1961 (age 57 years), Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children, Honolulu, HI Vice president: Joe Biden (2009–2017) Trending Full name: Barack Hussein Obama II Presidential term: January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017 Party: Democratic Party Education: Harvard Law School (1988–1991), MORE Parents: Ann Dunham, Barack Obama Sr. Jeremy1818 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Barack Obama for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Barack Obama is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Barack Obama until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Birth Certificate Controversy

There should be mention of this controversy which many times attracted national attention, especially when openly questioned repeatedly by Donald Trump. Please include in Wikipedia. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It is included in Wikipedia, see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. That article is linked in this article, use ctrl-f and you'll find it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There's also two more articles on the topic, Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation and United States presidential eligibility legislation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hot-Mic: Offering Flexibility to Russia during the 2012 election

A significant gaffe during the 2012 election was President Obama's hot mic incident where he was caught telling Russian President Medvedev that he will have flexibility to negotiate with Putin after the election. There is no mention of that anywhere on his 2012 campaign page nor on his main page, however Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe is mentioned on both is 2012 campaign page and his main page (rightfully so as it was notable).

I propose that it gets added to the page. Dy3o2 (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Not notable enough for this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's not notable to you maybe, but it is a notable event that happened during the 2012 election cycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy3o2 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Dy3o2 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

How is this noteworthy? Elections interfere with policy. This isn't a surprise. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The event happening in it of itself is noteworthy as it garnered headlines during the election cycle. I'm not suggesting nefarious activity occurred, but it was a big event. Something comparable would be Romney's 47% comment, binders full of women gaffe, dog incident, all incidents that are documented on his comparable wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dy3o2 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Dy3o2, garnering headlines in a 24 hour news cycle doesn't by itself make something noteworthy. These Romney things you're mentioning aren't relevant here. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Obama’s statement was ambiguous and thus subject to much speculation, but it’s actual meaning remains unclear and so it’s not noteworthy here. As Bush said after being re-elected, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it,” meaning he had more leverage to advance his agenda in Congress. meh. soibangla (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Dy3o2 (talk) - this statement is certainly notable and relevant, especially in light of everything the DNC did to try to tie Trump to Putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Missing subjects

The Obama article is far from complete, especially about his presidency, and a number of topics should be included which are not, and others should be discussed at more depth. For example, missing is any mention of trading five Taliban terrorists for Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, the IRS scandal, Pigford 2, Solyndra, record number of people on food stamps, doubling the national debt, and many other topics.JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. Per Wikipedia:Summary style this is the top-article of a huge subject, and not meant to be "complete" but by necessity heavily summarized. It's possible that something about (taking your first example) Bowe Bergdahl deserves a mention in an "Obama-article", perhaps Presidency of Barack Obama or Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. Or perhaps the coverage in that article is enough. Suggest a text with the best sources you can find or be WP:BOLD and see what happens. By now, you can find this topic in books. [2][3][4] Note that Taliban Five also is an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I included summary text about Bowe Bergdahl in this article, with proper cites, but an administrator reverted the edit, calling it "coatrack" - i.e. is should not be part of the article, is not relevant, etc. I also made an edit which included a sentence regarding criticism of the Cash for Clunkers program. That was also reverted. The bottom line is that the editors and administrators of Wikipedia revert any edits which include statements critical of a liberal/Democrat U.S. politician, no matter how relevant or properly cited.JohnTopShelf (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, these things may be relevant to the administration (and even then, maybe not), but not to Obama as a person. You think we revert any criticism of Obama, but it seems to me that you're trying to add anything negative that you can tie to him, no matter how obscure. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf I concur with Muboshgu's comment. For example, Presidency of Barack Obama mentions cash for clunkers.soibangla (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You cannot separate Obama the person from Obama the President - for 8 years they were one and the same. If you want to separate the person from the President, why even mention anything about his presidency in the Obama person article, beyond just stating that he was president for eight years from 2009-2017? Obviously that would be nonsensical. What Obama did as president, good and bad, should be part of the article about Obama, and indeed, all manner of topics about events during his presidency are included in the article. However, there is no mention of Bergdahl in the article, even though trading 5 Taliban terrorists for Bergdahl was a relevant, important event during Obama's presidency - it was hardly "obscure". But even the Presidency of Obama article, while mentioning some of his failed programs and policies (like Cash for Clunkers), avoids criticism of those programs and policies, and the entire article is written from a liberal point of view, in laudatory terms. In fact, it reads almost exactly like the presidency part of the article about Obama the person. And - there is no mention of Bergdahl in the Presidency of Obama article either.JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You cannot separate Obama the person from Obama the President Indeed we can, and do, just as we do with the Trump articles. Your proposed content belongs in the Presidency article, if anywhere, and if you feel that article is inadequate, you should add content. And just FYI, Cash for Clunkers was not an Obama initiative, Congress introduced it. soibangla (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, I would suggest looking at the surrounding sections for guidance on what is relevant to a biography of a major political figure. Most of the other sections under "foreign policy" are major actions that concerned an entire other country. I have not seen coverage in reliable sources that would merit a section about Bergdahl almost the same length as the section about the war in Afghanistan. That seems to be exactly what WP:UNDUE is meant to address. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your words of guidance, but I am still having difficulty understanding what is allowed in articles about living politicians. It seems criticism may be allowed under certain circumstances, as the Trump article characterizes him as a liar and a racist, and is full of critical statements. However, here an issue that seems to be relevant (trading 5 Taliban terrorists for a deserter), but is critical of Obama, is not allowed, and indeed the entire Obama article is virtually devoid of critical statements. Just so I have a better understanding of the myriad Wikipedia rules regarding living politicians, and where you are coming from regarding what is allowed - which if any of these topics do you believe would merit inclusion, and criticism, in the article about Obama the person and/or the article about the Presidency of Obama?: Doubling of the national debt, allowing ISIS to expand in Syria and Iraq, record number of people on food stamps and Medicaid, Pigford, Solydra, IRS scandal, VA problems, spying on Trump campaign, Fast and Furious, spying on the AP, Sebelius, Black Panthers voter intimidation, NSA spying on Americans, Arab Spring, allowing Russians to take Crimea without consequence, allowing Chinese to build island bases in the South China Sea and entrance to the Red Sea without consequence, attacking Libya without Congressional approval, commuting sentence of Chelsea Manning, and jumping to conclusions re. Ferguson, Baltimore, and Zimmerman before investigations were completed. Any feedback would be appreciated.JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Lying and racism are personal characteristics. Everything you listed about Obama relate to presidential policies, and a good number of them are dubious if not bogus. soibangla (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What on the list is dubious, let alone bogus?JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Add your content to the Presidency article and maybe I'll show you. soibangla (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear soibangla (talk: Your response is neither civil not helpful. Please let me know what topic(s) on the list you consider dubious and/or bogus. Thanks.JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf What was uncivil and unhelpful? If you think you've got good content, add it to the Presidency article and allow it to be scrutinized. soibangla (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's been explained why all of what you want to include is not suitable for this particular article. No one is fooled by this apparently "civil" attempt to "improve" the article; it's obvious what you're trying to do and why. Acalamari 13:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I beg to differ, fellow editor, but no one has explained why a summary of any of the topics I suggested is not suitable for inclusion in this article, or in the presidency of Obama article.JohnTopShelf (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"It seems criticism may be allowed under certain circumstances" Certainly, but under the limitations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

• "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
• "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources (but keep in mind that depictions of recent events may be unbalanced). Do not use controversial or effusive descriptions unless commonly used by reliable sources. BLPs should not have trivia sections."
• "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."
• "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see #Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. Non-administrators should tag them with db-attack. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking."
  • Provided you can source your additions, there should be little problem. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your helpful suggestions and clarification on criteria for editing an article about a living person.JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, as stated by others, Wikipedia goes by what is stated in reliable sources and avoids giving undue coverage to minority viewpoints. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. While it is important to remember that comparisons to other articles can be problematic, articles like those on Obama and Trump have been vetted by numerous editors over many years, and generally reflect the fact that reliable sources are more critical of Trump than Obama. If you fundamentally disagree with that general consensus, then you are likely going to have to do a lot of work to convince other editors they have been misreading the reliable sources for many years. Considering that you haven't yet made an argument for your Bergdahl edits that were reverted, I would suggest making your case for your first addition (or making that case at the more appropriate pages that have been suggested) before repeatedly presenting a long list of wrongs to be righted. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, one thing that is highly relevant, and defined Obama's presidency, was his lie "If you like you doctor, you can keep your doctor". And, as commenters here have pointed out repeatedly, lying is a personality trait that rightfully belongs in an article like this. But, strangely, this statement, as important and defining as it was, is nowhere to be found in this article. Obviously, it should be included, probably in the lede.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Every human being who has ever lived has lied. The issue is the frequency, magnitude and repetition of lies. By those standards, it is hard to find another American public figure who has lied to the degree Donald Trump has. Citing one lie by Obama attempts to create a false equivalence. Lying simply was not a defining characteristic of Obama as it is with Trump. soibangla (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@JohnTopShelf: What reliable sources have cited that statement as having "defined" Obama's presidency or have stated that lying is a personality trait or important aspect about Obama? Anything you want to add has to be based on what is stated by reliable sources and not on your interpretation. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it accurate to refer to him as African American?

The wiki page for ‘African Americans’ specifies that the term is used for American people who are “descendants of enslaved black people who are from the United States”(African Americans (this version)). Wouldn’t it then be incorrect to call Obama African American since neither of his parents are such? BooLeigh (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You missed "typically" in your quote. See also Q2 in the FAQ on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

And the quote cited here is from the second sentence of our article. The first sentence defines the term as "an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa." That certainly applies to Obama. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to Obama as biracial or multiracial? Obama himself has discussed in depth his mixed ancestry, with white, black and Arab heritage.JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No, for WP-purposes Q2 in the FAQ is the way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

To call somebody "African American" who is 50% white European American is clearly hypodescent "one drop rule"-thinking. No matter how the person calls him- or herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Querstrebe (talk • contribs) 09:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

See Q2 in the FAQ on this talkpage. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Snowden leaks

Surprised to see that the international spying scandals and Snowden are not mentioned in this article. To non-Americans such as me, this is one of the things Obama is most remembered for. Vandergay (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please explain how is that related to Obama biography? I am a non-American and I am interested in politics but I don't think that this is what Obama is remembered for.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Vandergay that it is strange that there was no section related to government mass surveillance & the Snowden leaks, since there was already even a separate article about this: Barack Obama on mass surveillance. I just added a section on this in the "Domestic policy" section. I had previously discussed a few days ago with two other editors about the absence of a section talking about the Snowden incident, etc, and they also both agreed that there should be one. Feel free to improve it. Cheers. -- Blue.painting (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I've seen worse (praising with faint damn). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Your post here is your first comment to this talk page, so no, you didn't have a discussion with anyone here about that section. In addition, your edit summary is deceptive: You claim the addition of the section has been discussed but it hasn't. Posting to a talk page, by itself, as Vadndergay did before adding the content, isn't consensus and doesn't count as having had a discussion. Acalamari 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Acalamari and Gråbergs Gråa Sång, true you are both right. My apologies. I guess I'm still getting used to how things are done here on WP. So for instance the other day I added a paragraph on this topic in the "Legacy" section. Then it was reverted by User:Snooganssnoogans. Following this I discussed with this user on their talk page, thanking them for the input and indicating that I would try and make changes based on their suggestions. They told me they thought indeed that there should be a section on this in the article (but better worded than I had done). I also discussed with User:Pelirojopajaro who was the one suggesting it would be well suited as a section in "Domestic policy" with link to the main article. So I felt I had discussed the matter with editors and so then proceeded to do second revision (which was around the same time that this Talk page section was added) and so I figured that since the discussion had already been brewing and something was already underway, I just kind of posted the update here since someone had brought it up. But perhaps I should have delayed the edit and touched base on the actual talk page first and not with individual editors. Please proceed in the way that would be most appropriate based on your expertise. I am relatively new here... (And note that User:Snooganssnoogans has already made a better revision of the section.) Again my apologies. -- Blue.painting (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Blue.painting, nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD, it's how we make things happen and learn stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I am aware that this happened, but to me, this is not one of the things Obama is most remembered for, unless it's a long list. Of course it should be covered on WP, but not necessarily in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Make "Presidency" section chronological

Many of the other articles I've seen such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton the Presidency section is almost chronological and divided into First term and Second term. Furthermore, their re-election campaigns are included in the Presidency section. Should the "Presidency" section on this article be changed to be more consistent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subkot (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Killed by NATO assisted forces

Is it really necessary to say that Muammar Gaddafi was killed by NATO assisted forces in the introduction? I feel that it is not very relevant to the subject of the article and the sentence on Libya should simply be replaced by something like: "He ordered military involvement in Libya which contributed to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi." DeathTrain (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

change 2017 to 2016 SonofGod34 (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Why? He was in office from January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Misleading timeline statement in article

"After graduating from Columbia University in 1983, he worked as a community organizer in Chicago." This implies that he was a community organizer starting in 1983, but later in the article, under Law Career/Harvard University and Community Organizer, it is said that he began work in that position in 1985. The initial statement, while essentially true, is somewhat misleading and should be clarified. (What happened between 1983 and 1985?)

This is my first-ever comment posted to Wikipedia. I apologize and ask for kind remarks about how I could have done it better, if I've run afoul of any usual practices. FourSeasonsMN (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello FourSeasonsMN and welcome to Wikipedia! Your message is in the right place on the right page, clear and polite, even correctly signed. I have no improvement to suggest.

On your specific point, it's a matter of opinion. I don't read it as misleading, but I see your point. The WP:LEAD is not supposed to have too much detail, but I see no harm if you want to insert a clarification. Someone else may disagree with such an edit, and change the article again, but that is life around here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This should probably be delisted as a Featured Article

I don't wish to be too much of a party pooper here guys, but this article probably shouldn't continue to be classed as a Featured Article, and to that end I would propose sending it to Featured article review with a look towards de-listing. It reached FA status in 2004, a time when the standards at FA were very much lower than they are today, and four years before Obama was even elected President. It has undergone a series of FARs up to 2012, in which it has retained its status, but looking at it now, I don't think this article would have a chance in Hell of actually being appointed an FA. It relies virtually exclusively on free web sources, when really, if it wants to be among our very best content, it should be based around the content of biographies and historical studies of Obama's life and presidency. Compare it, for example, with political biography articles that have far more recently received FA-status, like Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin, and you will see a clear difference in the quality of the sourcing. Are there any firm objections to this being sent to FAR? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with free web sources, if those sources are reliable. Putting aside what's merely journalistic, there aren't yet so many biographies and historical studies. -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The number of biographies and historical studies are mounting, and vast amounts of academic literature on Obama was published during his presidency. Granted, most people don't have access to these, but if we really want to consider this one of Wikipedia's very finest articles then we need to make heavy use of them. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with free web sources, as they can be reliable, but we should only be using them when better, more specialist sources are unavailable. Clearly, that's not the case here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

What specific "biographies and historical studies" are missing? He hasn't been out of office that long (even though sometimes it may feel that way). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a strangely polarized period in US politics, and Obama is a recent president, whose pluses and minuses are strongly if not always intelligently debated. Books and their writers are likely to be accused (reasonably or unreasonably) of having axes to grind -- more likely than are, say, most articles in the NYT. For various reasons, the more journalistic of books won't link individual claims with individual sources. The more academic are likely to cite sources similar to those already cited in this article. (Which is not to say that their sources will never be better, or that they'll never correct flaws in this article.) "[M]ost people don't have access" to the sources that you want cited; so how do you want them cited: (A) something like author, book title (place: publisher, year), page; or (B) something like author, book title (place: publisher, year), page; citing author, [linked] web page title (website, date, date of access)? If it's (A), this won't help most readers or those editors who lack quick access to the cited work (when faced with any claim that it doesn't say what's attributed to it). If it's (B), the references will balloon in length. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to taking the article to FAR, but I would echo what others said about the lack of (RS-worthy) books, especially regarding his presidency. Orser67 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

Hello Mr. Obama. I am a fan and i realize that some of the information on here is false and I would love to edit it to make it more correct because you are a man worthy of an accurate Wikipedia page. Thank you, and I would love to edit for you on Wikipedia Obama69420 (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideau^talk 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Obama69420 and welcome to Wikipedia. You can edit this article when you have become WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. However, edits to this article should ideally be neither for or against Obama, simply inline with the policy WP:Biographies of living persons (well, it may not be "simply"). Please read that policy carefully before you start editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

'New Democrats' box autoexpanded

Why is the "New Democrats" box set to have "People" expanded by default? Adds length that's not necessary at the lead of this highly visible article. I think, like the other sections of the "New Democrats" box, it should be hidden by default. Thoughts? Ganesha811 (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably set that way because that’s the section containing the link to this article. Regardless, I see yor point and have set the template to its default visibility. Drdpw (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Drdpw, thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019

In other: Scooby Doo references Barack Obama (pronounced Rarack Robama) in an interview. Zimmeisa000 (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done - You didn't cite a WP:SECONDARY source for this material. Also, it's trivial in the extreme.- MrX 🖋

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019

I would like to edit an incorrect statement 46.97.126.62 (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what change you want to be made. What statement is incorrect? Please mention the specific change in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Barack Obama isn't dead.

The sidebar lists Obama as having died November 11, 2019 (aged 0) in Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.

Unless that's been severely unreported, I think that that's false information.

Yep. Straight out vandalism. It has been fixed. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2019

50.200.132.221 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Education section

I have edited articles on Wikipedia for several years, and apparently I have not made 10 edits yet, so I cannot edit this page, and would like to ask somebody who can make edits to the Obama education section to delete information which does not relate to President Obama's education, such as discussion of the president's mother, father, stepfather, travels as a child, substance abuse, etc., and add the relevant education basics, such as the president's Columbia University and Harvard University degrees and experiences. I am nearly certain that the former president's education section at one time must have included this information. The additional information, which comprises now most of the education section, needs editing, and possibly needs additional protections put in place.

Currently the education section in this article introduces and showcases questions regarding Wikipedia's vulnerability to informational flaws and unreliability readers might want to ask themselves before visiting Wikipedia, and that is damaging to the Wikipedia reputation and brand. If you can allow me editing privileges on this page, I can write a nice education section that lends credibility to Wikipedia as an information source.

Thank you very much for considering.

BrookeinHumboldt (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello BrookeinHumboldt. You have not edited WP for years with this account [5], so it is not WP:AUTOCONFIRMED yet.

There are several aspects to balance here. While Education contains info not strictly about education, IMO it seems relevant and gives chronological context. I think it would be better to tweak Education slightly , perhaps make it Schoolyears, than removing that info.

On adding more detail, this part of the article should ideally be a summary of Early life and career of Barack Obama (it may not be, I haven't checked), and it's possible that more details on Obama's education fits better there. But whatever you intend to add, be sure to cite reliable sources with inline citations. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

2004 U.S. Senate campaign

Potential error in diagram of campaign support in Illinois.

Should countries not be changed to regions?

The text says, "Results of the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois; Obama won the counties in blue."

Correction, "Results of the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois; Obama won the regions in blue." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:C500:880:E802:8234:1DB1:2B05 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would you think this? The map is clearly showing Illinois counties, and is even titled "Illinois Senate Election Results by County, 2004". ValarianB (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

World map shows Crimea as part of the Russian Federation

Would you be so kind to use map (International trips made by President Barack Obama during his terms in office)which is in agreement with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.90.252 (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry.com study

Is it worth dropping a footnote saying that an Ancestry.com study strongly suggested that President Obama's mother was descended from John Punch, an enslaved person of African descent (see [6] and [7])? SunCrow (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

No. --Malerooster (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Right or wrong, it's mentioned in Ann Dunham and John Punch (slave). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

External links

The "External links" needs to be reviewed for possible inclusion in the article or trimming. Along with four "Official sites" there are eighteen "other" links that becomes a cultivated "link farm". Otr500 (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"Bobama" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bobama. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding disputed to birth place

First and foremost, I'm not personally saying that this movement is genuine or based in fact or reason. However, due to the fact that this issue is notable enough for its very own article should we add disputed to birth place. It would look like "Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S. (disputed)". It is not unusual to see these type of popular conspiracy theories making there way into infoboxes (see Jeffery Epstein). I'm so sorry, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No, since it's not disputed by reliable sources. It is wikilinked in the Template:Barack Obama at the bottom of the article (and mentioned in articles like Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Veracity of statements by Donald Trump), which is the proper WP:WEIGHT for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No. We don't lend credence to nonsense by placing one-word tags into infoboxes. If it needs to be mentioned at all it goes into the article where the proper context can be established. Infoboxes aren't for BLP-violating canned summaries of repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories. You should know better. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

HELL no. We're not giving any credence to crackpots. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't Conservapedia or Stormfront, so no. Oh, and seemingly "regretful" racism is still racism. Acalamari 00:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to say that having it say "disputed" is a poor word choice on my part, as pointed out by a couple responses his birth places is not disputed by reliable sources. However, I think maybe it saying "controversy" would be a better choice since the movement has been widely debuncked, and was mainly a controversy. "Delusion" would probably be the most accurate term, but that may be a NPOV issue! Also, I don't respect some of the comments personally attacking me and calling me a racist when that was not my intention. My only intention is to improve wikipedia, and sometimes we have to do things we don't necessarily like. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think anyone was calling you racist. We're all pointing out that calling his birth place "disputed" lends weight to the fully debunked conspiracy theories in a way that is against WP:FRINGE. I can't speak to why Jeffrey Epstein's cause of death is listed as "disputed". That seems like a bad idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an example of why a number of editors on WP loathe infoboxes, as excessively concise summaries of a couple thousand words into a superficial summary. It is easy to make an infobox carry too much baggage. Context and nuance require paragraphs and prefaces, which aren't possible or desirable in an infobox. The Epstein infobox is another such example, but at least it's disputed by his lawyers, rather than solely by a brigade of cranks. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers - This is neither a "delusion" nor a "controversy". It came about because some racists and some Republican Party members and supporters were willing to ignore all the evidence and all principle and propriety in campaigning for their goal of preventing Obama from being elected. It was a pretty low point in political behaviour in the US, and was never a real characteristic of Obama himself. There is no way it should be mentioned in his article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Barack Obama is the first Mixed American president of United States Of America. 71.178.242.55 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"0bama" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 0bama. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 1#0bama until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Excessive Hagiography

Though long poo-pooed by my public school teachers, Wikipedia is an increasingly-powerful purveyor of fact. Like it or not, it is the primary source to which millions of people turn to learn, refresh, and verify information. Despite fears of page vandalism, the decentralized, crowd-sourced model of authorship has worked remarkably well. As in any free market, the aggregate decisions and knowledge of the largest possible number of people converge to agglomerate the best and most thorough information available. It is nonetheless vulnerable to the biases of those who choose to participate directly in the recording of history. This group, the active authors of Barack Obama's virtual epitaph that shall God willing endure for generations, therefore bears a significant responsibility, indeed a sacred duty, to provide the facts as they are, not facts as they wish them to be nor comments on the same. For the preservation truth as much as for the preservation of the reputation and credibility of Wikipedia itself, we must strive not to pontificate or editorialize, but to state plainly, offering only minimal assessment where absolutely necessary.

This page is excessively hagiographic. The concluding sentence of the fourth paragraph, "During his term in office, America's reputation abroad significantly improved," does not even attempt objectivity. Failing to even consider taking the long view of history, this sentence is both an unnecessary detail and a subjective assessment of the sentiments of an extremely diffuse set of people around the world, which its author cannot possible know and would only include if he actively sought to praise the subject. Indeed, the citation links to an editorial from a newspaper known to have a center-left editorial stance, and therefore a paper invested in the success of President Obama as well as one that has, since Obama's departure from the White House, demonstrated a consistent editorial preoccupation with opposition to his successor. The editorial itself is chiefly interested in criticism of President Trump and praise for his predecessor. This sentence should go, for a start.

The preceding sentence similarly betrays a clear center-left political orientation. In discussing his nominations to the Supreme Court, the article states that "Obama nominated three justices to the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were confirmed as justices, while Merrick Garland faced partisan obstruction and was not confirmed." Opposition to the nomination of Merrick Garland is characterized as "partisan obstruction," an old and tired talking point of the Democratic Party intended to dismissively paint political opposition to Obama's nominees due to qualifications, ideology, or the manner of the nomination as some unreasonable injustice. Political opposition to Presidential nominees is common and ought to be encouraged in a free society that welcomes debate, criticism, and scrutiny of the current holder of the high office, and Wikipedia must strive to present what is or was being argued, not cavalierly discount one side of a contentious political debate. The author of this sentence was not even possessed of the decency to offer a citation for this portrayal. I suggest amending the sentence to "Obama nominated three justices to the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were confirmed as justices while Democrats held the majority in the Senate, but Merrick Garland's nomination was blocked by Republicans when they held the majority."

I also believe that an addition should be made to the final paragraph noting that Obama has faced criticism for specific policies and stances. I of course agree that it should be noted he is ranked favorably by historians and the public, but it ought to be noted that his popularity was not universal and his policies not uniformly successful. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill are both greater men than he who triumphed in times of greater challenge, and their Wikipedia entries mention that, while highly regarded, they also have been criticized for Japanese internment and support of imperialism, respectively. Obama admittedly exceeded his constitutional powers in establishing DACA, failed to achieve robust economic growth despite (or perhaps because of) his Keynesian economic policies, and saw rival powers Iran, Russia, and China emboldened by his failure to enforce red lines in Syria. More extralegal drone killings occurred during his administration than any other. More illegal immigrants were deported during his administration than any other. Members of his administration working in the IRS targeted his political rivals to prevent them from fundraising effectively. The man was not without controversy, so at least some of these should make the opening paragraph of his Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerwin1854 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid words such as "an old and tired talking point of the Democratic Party" paint your position all too clearly. I doubt you came to the article seeking objectivity. And before you accuse me of bias on that front, I am not American, I live 13,000 km away. I am easily triggered by obvious bias. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jerwin1854: I would invite you not to take Wikipedia as seriously as you seem to be taking it in the first paragraph. This is a for-fun project that is not academically serious in any way. Just yesterday, I had to shame the website into correcting a word that had been left misspelled on the China page for about nine years or so. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jerwin1854: Thank you for taking Wikipedia seriously and for remaining polite about what you clearly dislike. (Meanwhile, let's let Geographyinitiative enjoy his waggishness undisturbed.) Let's look at one thing that you say, viz

The concluding sentence of the fourth paragraph, "During his term in office, America's reputation abroad significantly improved," does not even attempt objectivity. Failing to even consider taking the long view of history, this sentence is both an unnecessary detail and a subjective assessment of the sentiments of an extremely diffuse set of people around the world, which its author cannot possible know and would only include if he actively sought to praise the subject.

This attempts objectivity. Yes, America's reputation is a subjective matter. But a summary of subjective opinion is, or can be, objective. There are established methods of estimating the general opinion in one nation of another nation. The Wikipedia article cites a WashPo article. This in turn cites the Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Project. If the latter is suspect or defective, please say how it is suspect or defective. If the WashPo summary of it is suspect or defective, ditto. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, then the statement in the Wikipedia article may remain undisturbed. The statement makes no pretense at "taking the long view of history"; and few people would argue either that this would be easy to do for any president since the 70s or perhaps even earlier, or that Wikipedia should not cover them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed research and academic assessments describe the refusal to consider Garland's nomination as unprecedented, obstructionism and an example of democratic backsliding in the US. Since Wikipedia should reflect the RS, this Wikipedia page should use similar language. 01:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that comment could be translated as "I never vote Democrat". (You DID choose to condemn the party.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2020

In the summary box, the links for "Malia" and "Sasha" redirect to pages off Wikipedia (to Gyaanipedia). They should direct toward the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malia_and_Sasha_Obama Darjeelingblend (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done [8] Thanks for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2020

ok i need to make a few changes to change every thing to past tense if you dont mind Dartsspurt (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you don't, and we do mind. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

See MOS:TENSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sic

"In May 2020, Obama criticised President Trump for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic,calling his response to the crisis "an absolute chaotic disaster".Trump reacted by retweeting Twitter posts which accused Obama of targeting incoming officials and sabotaging the Trump administration in the last weeks of his presidency and by calling this endeavour "the biggest political crime in American history"[sic]"

There is no misspelling in the quote that would warrant the use of sic Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are correct; I removed it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC on page creation for Obamagate

Discussion can be found here.Casprings (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Intro section edit warring

This article, like all BLPs, is a biography of the subject's whole life and career, and its intro is a summary of the major, notable events in his life. We do not write BLPs with an eye to having balance with what another article includes, or to reflect the "zeitgeist" of the times. Adding something to the intro of his biography about some protests is inappropriate, especially given the thinness of the linked article and does indeed give it much greater weight than is warranted. The article on his presidency would be a possible place for this, if that, but not here. As far as the Trump biography is concerned, the protests that met his inauguration, for example, have been much more significant than these, and that linked article commensurately much more detailed and comprehensive - but that's a decision to be made by the editors of that biography. Here so far two different editors have reverted the addition, and it should not be added again unless consensus were to be reached to include it, as that is edit warring and not allowed. Always willing to discuss - but here, not in edit summaries. Please stop adding it. Tvoz/talk 02:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for taking the time to write this. However I think it inappropriate to warn me for putting in a credibly sourced reference that is important to the subject at hand. The election of President Obama spawned a major political movement in response. I do agree that linking to the article on the tea party movement and the other protests would be more appropriate but I couldn't see a way to do so without giving undue weight to it, I felt that one article was more appropriate for one sentence. I choose the protest article because it was the same one linked in the Trump page (I will cover that later) and because it establishes the causal link more explicitly than the Tea Party article and so I felt it was more appropriate as a landing place. Also to avoid an appearance of impropriety on an article that is likely fraught with people search out for it I copied the exact verbiage from the Donald Trump article (and placed it in the same place in the introduction) since that is probably one of the most active articles currently on WP. However I strongly disagree with you asserting that I shouldn't revert when the lack of consensus is two editors, one of them being yourself. Two editors does not consensus make and neither have actually taken the time to state why the edit is inappropriate other than what I would contend are vague assertions of due weight which I believe are not in line with the, as you highlighted in quibble marks, zeitgeist of the time. I'll be fair and admit that I never expected this edit to make it, I don't have a political horse in this race and in my 15 years as an editor I have generally tried to avoid politics articles on Wikipedia because the amount of effort required to be even handed is almost always extinguished by agenda operators whose edit history almost entirely reflects their politics, and you'll pardon me if I've long given up on assuming good faith in this particular area. This was more an experiment on my behalf to see if a well sourced and identical reference that certainly met all notability and weight standards could remain in the same vein that it remains on an entry from someone far less popular with the Wikipedia cognoscente. I suppose you could say the experiment was a failure, or maybe a success. I guess it depends on your point of view. I won't be arguing it any more on here because I have no desire to tilt at windmills. BHC (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"His election and policies sparked numerous protests", the key words are "his election". Obama personally did not incite the protests, his policies and progressive ideals did, which is why it does not belong here, but rather in his presidency article. Unless you'd like to argue that the opposition was largely rooted in racism personally directed at Obama, and while I would not necessarily disagree with that, it'd need some good sourcing to support.

In regards to Trump, the reaction to his election was personal and visceral, his many, many personal shortcomings, vices, and whatnot are well-sourced and covered. Trying to apply a "both sides" glove to opposition to Trump's presidency and opposition to Obama's presidency is rather groundless, IMO. ValarianB (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Barack Obama Religion

What is the religion of former American president Barack Obama? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohail345 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Look at the section in the article titled "Religious views." Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It is well covered: Barack Obama#Religious views.--Chuka Chief (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Harvard Law Review

How is this even controversial? I changed the BO bio to "first black president of the HLR" from "first black head of the HLR". "Head" is an ambiguous term and not accurate. Someone then reverted my entry saying, "no HLR has an editor, not a president". That is not true, the HLR has both. President Obama was the President of the HLR, not the Editor. That is an easily verified fact.

Scottca075 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Scottca075: You're right. I acted too hastily. Thanks for the correction. Sundayclose (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Typo

Is it me or the following sentence (2nd in the article) would make more sense if it was prefixed by As or Being?

"A member of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama was the first African-American president of the United States."

If this article wasn't semi-protected, I'd edit it myself.

It's not incorrect. It's two independent clauses. Each could be a stand-alone sentence, but it's not ungrammatical as it is. I would disagree with adding "as" or "being", as that suggests there is connection between being a member of the Democratic Party and being the first African-American president. One is not necessarily related to the other. As a hypothetical example, suppose it read, "A native of Hawaii, Barack Obama was the first African-American president of the United States." Being from Hawaii isn't necessarily related to being the first AA president. Sundayclose (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"American Reputation Abroad"

From the intro:

• During his term in office, America's reputation abroad significantly improved.

I doubt this claim which is merely supported by a single source that requires subscription for the full article. What I can read is the "60% positive views" statement in the first paragraph while as far as I know anti-Americanism existed at the same level (refer to those tables that list out the ratings by country - all surveys done during Obama's presidency), if not higher in China (for his Trans-Pacific Partnership) & the Philippines (whose president publicly used the "f word" to the US president at the time), let alone Russia and North Korea. Presumably, The Washington Post has their own bias (or double standards), especially if that's in the opinion column. ^{In dialogue with} PanVoyager 04:35 Sunday, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If you don't like it, change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding a caption to the infobox image

I propose the following caption for the infobox: "Official portrait, 2012". I think it would only benefit readers -- currently, it is unclear when the portrait was taken during his presidency, and his appearance changed significantly over those 8 years). An alternative choice is "Obama in 2012". Thoughts? — Goszei (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on the articles on his 4 most recent predecessors, I'd say it's at worst harmless. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Captions under infoboxes do not add much to the article unless they describe something important and specific to the article, when it just shows the year (for current politicians) it shouldn't be necessary unless it's someone from the past century who had a long career, then that would necessitate it. Obama's predecessors did not have captions for a long time until they were added recently. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Captions also create at times unnecessary blank space due to the text taking up the space, above the office parameter (in this case the president parameter), making the picture look smaller. As I said above sometimes the good aspects outweigh the negative aspects, but the captions here arent necessary. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the year adds useful information to the reader. Appearances do change.--Chuka Chief (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hyphens and African Americans

The AP style guide has removed the hyphen this year in African American and other hyphenated dual identities.AP tackles language about race in this year’s style guide Columbia Journalism Review Why has this article not followed this practice? I thought Wikipedia followed the AP style guide, but no? I was reverted when I tried to change it. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Francois Hollande

please change ((Francois Hollande)) to ((François Hollande)) 98.239.227.65 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

African-American FAQ

@Gatedais:, thanks, but I can read. I suggest reading the FAQ at the top of this page to understand why your change is inappropriate. Acalamari 14:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Gatedais, two people have now reverted you. After one person reverts you, you need to come to the talk page. When two people revert you, not only do you still need to come to the talk page but failure to do so while continuing to revert means you're now at risk of being blocked for revert warring. Acalamari 15:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

Obama has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers. (This is almost identical to a statement on Donald Trump's Wikipedia page.) Fact-checker source is https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama

I believe this should be added to Obama's page to even out the egregious and obvious bias of Wikipedia contributors/editors. Alexanderth3hgr8 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Note the frequency of Obama's fact-check fails in the link you provided: Four in 2014, one in 2013, a dozen or so in 2012. Compare that with Trump, who fails scores of fact checks in every speech. That's why we say that Trump (but not Obama, or pretty much any other president) "has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency". All politicians make some "false or misleading statements", but we only point it out for Trump - because he is off the charts. And before you say "bias!", note that we don't say it about any other Republican politician either. Trump's mendacity is unique. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Citizenship section for template

in special:diff/982279214 it was requested by user:cullen328 I pursue consensus before restoring the section.

template:infobox officeholder does not include an explanation of all it's sections (including this one) so template:infobox person can be useful there. It explains:

Should only be used if citizenship differs from the value in |nationality= and cannot be inferred from the birthplace.

This much is true since only Obama's American citizenship can be inferred by his birthplace. He has has in the past had bloodline nationality (if not necessarily citizenship.. blurred lines) citizenship in Britain/Kenya/Commonwealth during his youth which all expired due to him not renouncing American citizenship (Kenyan citizenship automatically lost if you don't renounce, don't allow dual citizenship).

I'm thinking cullen328 could be objecting because I might have misclassified BPP as citizenship when it might've been more appropriate as 'nationality' since BPP were subject to British jurisdiction and protection but did not have voting rights AFAIK. Same might be true of Commonwealth Citizenship since CW members don't vote in leaders of commonwealth but enjoy protections. I don't know where it would fall in Kenyan terms. If it's about voting rights then arguably children don't become citizens until voting age, until then they would effectively nationals. WakandaQT (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this obscure information about possible UK/Kenyan citizenship during his childhood does not belong in the infobox, which should not be packed with trivia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

War crimes and murder of civilians (state terrorism) omission

How is it that this article does not even mention the war crimes committed by Obama in Afghanistan and the criticism of the internationally illegal drone strike program that bombed and murderered a tremendous amount of civilians? This is quite an incredible amount of whitewashing.PailSimon (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Per guidance like WP:LENGTH we don't put everything about a big topic in the same article, that would be a bad idea (see Category:Barack Obama). You can find a sentence or two about it at Drone strikes in Pakistan, which is connected to articles like Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and War on terror.

But you are welcome to make a suggestion like "I propose that we add this text in this section cited to these WP:RS." Consider WP:PROPORTION, others might. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You would think that a president committing crimes that had they been committed by others would land them in the Hague is worth mentioning. PailSimon (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I would, PailSimon. So why don't you take up Gråbergs Gråa Sång's invitation? (You'll have to cite good sources, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of excellent sources available at Kunduz hospital airstrike for example.PailSimon (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Then you are free to use them, PailSimon. -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

Someone vandalized Obama’s middle name again. 2601:643:380:5040:28FC:239E:51A2:87EC (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It hasn't been vandalized. His middle name is "Hussein". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

False information:

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 find that saying B.H.O 2, is ... African-American ... is very misleading, and not far from Manipulation,

First, the meaning of the denomination : African-American, hence in the USA, is not the fact of having African blood while being American,

Otherwise ... I let you guess the consequences and "the getting out of hand" of many cases and situations,

It means being the descendant of the Africans brought to "America" centuries ago to be slaves. It is "a situation" not just a name or an adjective.

No more, no less.

Hence the very long and horrible story that they lived, without forgetting the "left overs" ... the fact that there are still African-Americans suffering from racism and discrimination, yes at a lesser degree, but still existing so the suffering still exists.

Colin Powell, Martin Luther King and Tom Bradley, as an example, are African-Americans, hence if in a speech or campaign, they say, or the media says; He is the 1st African-American president of the united states, WITH All what that means:

The HUGE and gigantic step forward of the USA toward the eradication of any type discrimination toward African-Americans, AND a final and very respectable message to the other countries saying, USA is over with those dark ages.

The tremendous pride and satisfaction that every African-American will feel, saying to him self, finally! we ARE, and "the same" too !

So my point is, saying that B.H.O 2 is African-American, is a manipulation of words, to put him as a favorite toward African-Americans, and a lie to say that finally an African-American got to the presidency in the USA.

My "speech" might be very rude toward B.H.O 2, but it is even "ruder" to lie to a whole planet including your own fellow citizen.

So please, correct your "wikipedia" pages and the likes, I am, too, allergic to B.S. .

Rémi E.

PS: feel free to argue about Powell's case/example, even if you will be right, it wont change a thing about the principal subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.159.254.130 (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It means being the descendant of the Africans brought to "America" centuries ago to be slaves. No, not true. As our page on African Americans says, African Americans are are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa. His father is from Kenya and his mother is from Kansas, so he is quite literally "African American". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

See Q2 under "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

My dear Friend, those information are NONO-NOGO, they are untrue, written by manipulators, you and me belong to one of the rare species that has the "intelligence" to Lie, for X or Y reason, it could be for bad reasons, it could be for good reasons, it is a fact, it is so true, that it is actually one of the millions ways of Surviving.(even parents lie to their kids for good reasons some times)

So tell me, you, how would differentiate a "black" US citizen, as belonging to who SUFFERED the EXTREME violence of: being chased and trapped like animals in Africa, then parked like animals in western African Ports, transferred into slave ships by the Atlantic, where they were thrown like trash overboard when food/water was too low for the crew ? and who arriving to America ended up as pure merchandise just a little bit more important that a donkey or a caw ? Those Africans that suffered segregation until like 50/60 years ago ?

From Africans (race wise) that "came" from Africa ? in our example, B.H.O 2nd is actually the worse case ever, because his father was a "rich" African, do I have to go further ? Do I have to explain the point of view of Islam toward slavery ?

Do I have to repeat that, B.H.O 2nd, his ancestors and descendants, the "three" of them never suffered or will suffer the thousand'th of what suffered THE African-Americans thru history ?

To open your eyes, I defy anyone to show me a sincere intervention of the NAACP in regards of a problem toward an African immigrant.

And to finish up, I may offend you by telling you that you, fell quite easily in the trap, the trap is called: Technically.

Yes technically he is an African and American, but as I said, THE African-American is a historical thing, not just a tag like: "made in USA" stamped on some stuff assembled from non US parts ... Do you see my point ?

And that's how "he" "got" you, I will unfortunately use the word Hypocrisy, I never forgot a very sad scene were a young man asked him: will you legalize cannabis ? the answer of B.H.O 2nd was "yeah" like he was making a deal with his homie ... After election, he refused to legalize it -- lying to get elected AND to an Afro-American man, while pretending he is AA, so "one of them" . (out of subject: and look at who did legalize the cannabis lately? isn't ironic?)

Miss, Madam or Sir are you Afro-American ?

Saying AA's are an ethnic group of Americans is just ridiculous scientifically,

Never forget: "white" Americans are Caucasians (the "white" race) from Europe, AA's are Africans (the "black" race) from Africa ... The Americans are what you commonly call the natives, are an ethnic group of the Caucasians -- I am of course talking about the Natives-Americans, the "Indians".

Talk to you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.159.254.130 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2020 (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.

Infobox senator link

In Obama's infobox, the "from Illinois" part of the U.S. Senator from Illinois section links to List of United States senators from Illinois. Should this be changed to link to the state of Illinois to maintain consistency with all other senator's pages?2601:88:8101:E300:D1DC:42A8:C4BA:3D48 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Immigration Policy

Hi all. I added this to the page under the above heading which has now been removed under dubious pretences:

Obama's immigration policy has been criticised as 'the harshest and largest immigration enforcement regime in American history.' Under the Obama administration, it is reported that between 2009 and 2015, a total of 2.5 million people were deported, at a rate above 385,000 between 2009 - 2011 with the highest level of deportations reaching 409,849 in 2012. There was also controversy over the usage of 'Cages That House Immigrant Children at U.S.-Mexico Border' which were first built and used under his term in office.

According to @Snooganssnoogans: it 'pushes a false narrative about Obama implementing the family separation policy.' - Although I'm not sure how, as it is a fact that his administration created the cages and no where in the section did I state that Obama was linked directly to the term 'family separation policy' - the source addresses this and one part states: 'Thomas Homan (who was director of removal operations at ICE under President Obama). Homan had said during a June 21, 2019, panel discussion hosted by the anti-immigration advocacy group Center for Immigration Studies that “‘The kids are being [housed] in the same facility built under the Obama administration. If you want to call them cages, call them cages. But if the left wants to call them cages and the Democrats want to call them cages, then they have to accept the fact that they were built and funded in FY 2015.”

From how I understand it, the cages were built within facilities, with the adults being close to them and reunited quickly after checks. It's not a pretty part of human history, but I wonder if this is a politically motivated removal of facts that even for me were quite the revelation at first to think Obama would do such a thing. Anyway, 'feelings' aside, I wonder if there is consensus as to how my original text could be improved please. For the record, I am not American and don't prefer any US president over any other...well I always had a soft spot for Kennedy. Anyway, Thanks in advance. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A comprehensive and NPOV summary of the Obama administration's policy on immigration is not "CATO called it the harshest immigration policy, and the Obama administration built cages." A comprehensive concise NPOV summary of the Obama adm's immigration policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Immigration Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans, How is that comprehensive if it doesn't include constructive criticisms and leaves out the controversy? And why can't there be another 'immigration policy' on his page too, like there are duplicated topics on both? I don't see any debunking of Obama here. Why can the fact that 'Statistically, more people were deported from the U.S. during the administration of President Barack Obama than during that of any other president.' not be included as a pretty important stat? Thanks for the reply.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Hi again, It's been over a week and you cannot justify your revert and your own talk page is marred with similar accusations and is disturbingly riddled with the similar pattern of reverting facts that you can not allow due to disagreeing with it. I have re-written the part since your revert was clearly politically motivated and I have also asked two other wiki editor who seem more objective to weigh in on this matter as, I am sorry but I do not trust your reasons for reverting due to your talk page. Thanks.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

SnooganssnoogansSo again you revert due to 'this is not a neutral concise summary of the Obama adm's immigration policy. a concise neutral summary can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Immigration . you have to seek consensus for this version' - however you still haven't replied to my last comment - but are very quick to appear when a revert needs doing lol. How convenient. Also, not sure you have much legitimacy to talk about being 'neutral' - the link you supplied highlights none of the more controversial aspects of Obama's immigration policy. Hardly 'neutral'. I also see you have no issue with other presidents having their immigration policies controversy pointed out...like Donald Trump...Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained why this is not a neutral concise summary of the Obama adm's immigration policy and gone so far as to show you what a neutral concise summary might look like. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but respectfully I disagree. The summary link you provided isn't neutral and you addressed none of my counter points and I worry about your biases - which otherwise would be none of my business, but I find your talk page record quite alarming, nothing personal against you - but it isn't very welcoming, but nor are the rude remarks made against you. In short - It cannot be neutral if it doesn't convey the constructive criticism and facts that he deported more people than any other president. Note Trumps page IS more neutral because it does convey his controversy. Why can't Obama's do the same? You say I need to seek consensus, but why bother if wiki is more about politically motivated reverts than representing history - both the good and bad bits? I'll wait for others to weigh in - if they agree with you then fair enough I will leave it. Thanks.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also oppose this, as it would appear that you are cherry-picking quotes and sources to contract a narrative that you desire to see, rather than one that reflects what most mainstream sources say about the President and immigration. ValarianB (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What and the current text used isn't cherry picking all the non-controversial aspects then? Did you read any of my points refuting this idea? Do you think that wiki articles should only be defined by 'mainstream' sources? What constitutes a 'mainstream' source by the way? And how is it that the Trump article is allowed (as it should) to mention controversy? Are you not the one cherry picking by stating that only mainstream sources and non-controversial information be applied to wiki articles? I really look forward to your reply lol...Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you think that wiki articles should only be defined by 'mainstream' sources?, the answer to which is unquestionably "yes". If you are unable to identify reliable sources on your own, you may wish to check Wikipedia:Reliable sources. ValarianB (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a shame, very selective answers there, very weak reply - only answer the questions that won't put you off kilter and undermine your argument.'If you are unable to identify reliable sources on your own, you may wish to check' - now you resort to condescension. So non of these sources are reliable or mainstream enough for you?

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-mixed-legacy-immigration

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/enforcement-actions
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

I think what you mean is - 'none of those sources fit my own political group think narrative'. No offense Valerian, but if you are unable to identify 'reliable' sources on your own (like those above), you may wish to check Wikipedia:Reliable sources to give you a hand - there is a difference between 'mainstream' sources and 'reliable 'sources' that don't have to be mainstream to be reliable. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If you re-read your citations, you would see that the number of deportations is greater largely due to a redefinition of what it meant to be deported. You are cherry-picking raw numbers and using them to support your own conclusions. That's not going to be allowed. Where we're at here is simple; add this material again, without consensus, and it will likely be reverted. ValarianB (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems unusual that the cages, built under Obama, are highlighteed on Trump's wikipedia page as an outcome of one of his policies. But there's no mention here. 124.157.73.108 (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You will learn that ANY criticism of Barack Obama WILL be removed by any one of a small army of left-wing biased editors. Barack Obama has never been criticized by anyone ... if you believe his Wikipedia biography. Compare it withe the biography of any US president in the past 30 years. 2601:245:4003:2530:D925:F57E:5B41:46C0 (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there is no "army of left-wing biased editors" and I object to your disparaging of the people who have worked on this article for many years, keeping it neutral, reliably sourced, and clean from vandalism. You are entitled to your opinion of the subject, but it has no place here. Stop characterizing hard-working editors. Tvoz/talk 19:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

My criticism is powerfully supported by a direct comparison with the George W. Bush biography. Loads of criticism of Bush there. Very little criticism of Obama is allowed here. It gets deleted or, at best, moved to a rarely seen satellite article, many of which were created as repositories for anything negative ... for the purpose of enabling this one (which everybody sees) to be a hagiography. This general practice, on all articles that have anything to do with politics, is why you had to wait 18 days for a reply. I rarely even look at Wikipedia any more. 2601:245:4003:2530:A9E1:BA8F:14D9:A7D7 (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

And ... oh my God ... have you even seen the Donald Trump biography? 2601:245:4003:2530:A9E1:BA8F:14D9:A7D7 (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In essence, anything remotely political on Wikipedia is indeed subject to instant removal by an army of pro-Left editors. Only pro-Left material can remain on Wikipedia, and nobody who isn't pro-Left should even bother editing or improving any article. For examaple, Obama was actually one of the elected members of the law review, and he didn't get on due to his scholarship, but if that entirely accurate change were made it would be instantly branded vandalism and removed. That is why Wikipedia is also called "Liberalpedia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Per Category:Politics that army of pro-Left editors can't be working very hard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes they are. They're working very, very hard. 2601:245:4003:2530:A9E1:BA8F:14D9:A7D7 (talk)

Recent change of leadimage

IMO, more recent official portrait (crossed arms) better. Both are fine per MOS:LEADIMAGE, but newer prez-pic makes sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The images are:

• File:President Barack Obama.jpg • 2012, established image
• File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg • 2009, proposed image

They are both good but I don't see a reason to change. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I think that it would be more appropriate to use his first term portrait instead of the current one in use from his second term. I think it makes more sense, as the current one has too much of a distracting background, whereas the first term version focuses on the President's face. Additionally, the first term portrait is more in line with the style of other presidential portraits, with the simple background including only flags. Thoughts?Fireandblood02 (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep current image - The background isn't distracting in the least, certainly no more than the proposed image. A more recent photo is preferred. Fireandblood02, don't change any more infobox images without discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep current image also. The 2012 photo is a much better representation of Obama's appearance and build. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• <Trolling removed per WP:NOTFORUM, Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC).>

"Barry Hussein Obama" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Barry Hussein Obama. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20#Barry Hussein Obama until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hiroshima speech

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Why does the information about the Hiroshima speech violates WP:LEAD? The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are one of the most significant events in the 20th century, and the first visit of the sitting US president is a historic moment, which was also widely covered by observers and the international media.--WEBDuB (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB I don't disagree on the bombings. But the WP:LEAD is meant to summarize the big points (content-wise) in an article, and Barack_Obama#Hiroshima_speech is not that, it's tiny, and your summary [9] was about half of that. I'm not saying this is an exact science.

Speeches_of_Barack_Obama#Hiroshima_Speech,_2016 is tiny, too (but consider expanding that). Obama was president for 8 years, tons of stuff he did was widely covered by observers and the international media. WP:PROPORTION is the general aim. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I note that for whatever reason it's absent from Presidency of Barack Obama and East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be added to the presidency article, for its symbolic importance - but it really didn't represent a policy change or overture to an adversary, etc. It is in the Speeches of article, appropriately. And it is here in the body of the article. But decisions about what to include in the intro of his biography - especially in an article of this size and scope - should be based on the impact a particular event or issue had upon the subject's whole life. It's a judgment call - I too had reinstated it the other day reflexively but looking over the entire piece, reconsidered and took it out of the intro. I don't think it would be egregious to include it, but as important as it seems to be as a symbol, I'm going with out of the intro, in the article. Tvoz/talk 08:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh gosh. Move it to the presidency article. That's another one of those satellite articles that very few people ever read. When people read this article, they expect to get the whole story. An accurate portrait. Including the warts and blemishes. 04:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:4003:2530:A9E1:BA8F:14D9:A7D7 (talk)

On a topic like this or Trump, readers will not get the whole story per WP:LENGTH. But if they think the topic is interesting, they will check other articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In any case, we're talking about whether it should be in the *intro* here - it's in the body of this article, and that's fine, it's just not significant enough to be in the intro. So it has nothing to do with length or people getting the "whole story". I said perhaps it should be "added to" the Presidency article, not "moved to".Tvoz/talk 08:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"But if they think the topic is interesting, they will check other articles." Gosh. That would be great if it actually happened. 16:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk)

Sure it does. Family of Barack Obama [10] has several pageviews, as does Presidency of Barack Obama [11]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

How are the page views on List of federal political scandals, 2009-17? Also, look at [[12]]. 16:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)16:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)16:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8

<Trolling removed, Bishonen | tålk 17:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC).>

Barack Obama peaked at 400,000 page views.

Family of Barack Obama peaked at 40,000 page views.

IRS targeting controversy peaked at 1500 page views. (Strange that the title no longer contains Obama's name.)

Allegations of Obama spying on Trump peaked at 620 page views. There is no comparison. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And your suggestion for changing/not changing this article concerning the Hiroshima speech is..? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

My attention was first attracted by an ongoing debate about removal of criticism. This is a chronic problem with this biography. It's been going on for 13 years. Anything resembling criticism from a conservative is gone within minutes. I would respectfully suggest that three subjects should be addressed at some length (2-3 paragraphs each with a boldface subheader): (A) Benghazi, (B) the IRS scandal and (C) the spying and sabotage against the Trump team from November 2016 to January 20, 2017. Pete Strzok's handwritten notes from a meeting with Joe Biden, Obama and James Comey in the Oval Office are especially revealing. Biden told Comey that Michael Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act. Read the last three sentences of the Logan Act article. It's unconstitutional. Only two people have even been indicted under the Logan Act (1802 and 1852). Neither was convicted. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, well, as one of the highest edit count editors on this article since 2006, through the primaries, elections, and two terms, I don't accept your assessment or accusations at all. This is a biography of a man's life, subject to our very specific rules about them - not a detailed analysis of his presidency or a place for original research about whether the Logan Act is constitutional. The Presidency article, indeed, might be a better place to explore some of those things - I don't speak for the editors there - but not here in the biography of his whole life. Tvoz/talk 21:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a hagiography. Everything good, nothing bad. Hide the ugly. Obama has been criticized by the current president of the United States. about 50 Republican senators and about 200 Republican members of the House. Several of his executive orders have been declared unconstitutional by a unanimous Supreme Court, which includes two of his own nominees. You'd never know it by reading this article and as I demonstrated above, very few people read the satellite articles. I don't just suspect that as president, Joe Biden will receive the same protection. I know it. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I take exception to your suggestion that I'd indulge in an extended discussion of the unconstitutionality of the Logan Act on this page. It can be dealt with in six words with cites to Stephen Vladeck's criticism, a related ruling by SDNY, and other experts: "which many experts believe is unconstitutional." Comey, Obama and Biden are all attorneys, and Obama was actually a professor of constitutional law. One would think that at least one of them would know better. But Biden suggested that Flynn should be prosecuted under the Act, and this apparently survived the discussion without any objection. This is very revealing.

Here was have a president who is allegedly an expert on constitutional law. But he wrote multiple executive orders that were unconstitutional. And he arguably participated in a conspiracy to prosecute the incoming National Security Advisor of the opposing party, under an unconstitutional relic of law from 1799. Nothing strange about that at all though. Nothing to see here. Time to move on. Right? 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Year of Nobel peace prize

Would it really have been 2009, that he would have won the prize? Would he have this on his document? (Couldn't it rather be something like 2011 or 2012?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.209.94 (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean? He won the Nobel Prize in 2009. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV

I raised several concerns about this article in the last week of November 2020. No meaningful response here from any editor. On December 23, all those questions were archived. This is a hagiography. To anyone whose only exposure to Barack Obama is this article, one would think he has never been the subject of any real criticism from anyone to the right of Joe Manchin. A quick comparison with other presidents' biographies, including Donald Trump and George W. Bush, reveals abundant criticism from political opponents. Don't tell me to go away and edit those articles. Let's make this article consistent with those articles. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't believe in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Trump and Obama are different people, therefore their articles are different as well. Obama never tried to lead a coup against the United States government. This article is neutral. If you want to raise any specific complaints, rather than broadly complain of a "hagiography", you're welcome to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump didn't try to "lead a coup against the United States government" either, and that claim reveals your anti-Republican, pro-Obama bias. This article is not neutral. I raised several specific objections, nobody posted a meaningful response, and they were archived after four weeks. Here we are, six weeks later and you're pretending I never "raised any specific complaints." 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, this article contains no criticism from political opponents. All other biographies about US presidents contain criticism from political opponents. Donald Trump, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, you name it. All of them contain criticism from political opponents. This one does not. Furthermore, this alleged "constitutional law scholar" wrote several executive orders that were declared unconstitutional by a unanimous Supreme Court. "Unanimous" includes the late Ruth Bader Ginsberg and both of Obama's Supreme Court nominees. If he really is a "constitutional law scholar," wouldn't he have known that he was exceeding his lawful authority when he wrote those executive orders? And wouldn't you agree that this is WP:NOTABLE enough to include in this article? If not, why not? 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Folks, it's good to keep the flag flying but you do know that Obama left office four years ago? At any rate, this page is for the discussion of actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"reveals abundant criticism from political opponents." Do you have sources containing criticism for Obama? Start by discussing these sources instead of making allegations. The spin-off article Presidency of Barack Obama already contains criticism of Obama's ethics:

• • "The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington criticized the administration, claiming that Obama retreated from his own ethics rules barring lobbyists from working on the issues about which they lobbied during the previous two years by issuing waivers. A 2015 Politico investigation found that, while Obama had instituted incremental reforms and the number of lobbyists fell during Obama's presidency, Obama had failed to close the "revolving door" of officials moving between government and business."
  • "On taking office, the Obama administration said that all executive orders, non-emergency legislation, and proclamations would be posted to the official White House website, whitehouse.gov, allowing the public to review and comment for five days before the President signs the legislation, but this pledge was twice broken during Obama's first month in office."
  • "However, Obama continued to make use of secret memos and the state secrets privilege, and he continued to prosecute whistleblowers."
  • "The Obama administration has been characterized as much more aggressive than the Bush and other previous administrations in their response to whistleblowing and leaks to the press, prompting critics to describe the Obama administration's crackdown as a "war on whistleblowers." Several people were charged under the previously rarely used leak-related provisions of the Espionage Act of 1917, including Thomas Andrews Drake, a former National Security Agency employee, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department contractor, and Jeffrey Sterling. Others prosecuted for leaking information include Shamai Leibowitz, a contract linguist for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, John Kiriakou, a former CIA analyst, and Chelsea Manning, an intelligence analyst for the US Army whose trial received wide coverage. Most notably, Edward Snowden, a technical contractor for the NSA, was charged with theft and the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to columnist Glenn Greenwald." Dimadick (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Need help

Obama in State Elementary School Menteng 01

Could someone who is able to edit photos crop and edit the photo so that only Obama, the guy in the left (his teacher), and the childhood statue of him remains? I cropped it so that only he and his statue appears, but I think it is better to include his old teacher too. I could have asked this in the photography lab, but there are much more watchers here. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on editing images, but your request seems impossible. To include only those three elements would be a non-rectangular crop. And even if you included some other people in the crop, I think it would look odd. I think you're better off using the entire photo. Sundayclose (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't really appear to be a useful image for the article, to be honest. ValarianB (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Commentary on the phrase "served as"

The use of the phrase "served as" to describe a politician's term of office is non-neutral euphemistic puffery. Some people may think a politician is serving, while others think the politician is the one being served. It is much more straightforward and factual to simply say that Mr. Obama was the 44th POTUS than to say he served as the 44th POTUS. My edit to use neutral language (found here) was rapidly reverted by someone who accurately noted that similar non-neutral phrasing is used in other articles. But the fact that this phrase may be used in a lot of other similar articles is not a good justification for using it; that is just an observation that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This puffery should be removed from all of them. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Since this issue originated on Talk:Donald Trump#"Served as" vs. "was", see my comment there. In a nutshell: This issue probably affects tens of thousands of articles. It should be discussed in a central place (I guess some WP:Manual of Style page?), not on an individual politician's talk page. As long as "served as" is the rule, it would violate WP:NPOV to use "was" here. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Further thoughts on NPOV

Forgive me, I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor. I am an experienced newspaper editor and reporter, however, and while I don't join with the details offered by the previous editor addressing this issue, I share that person's concern that relative to the pages of other past U.S. Presidents, this entry is unbalanced. Low points of the Obama administration are couched, mentioned in passing or elided altogether. 1. the discussion of the "red line" in Syria offers a clear example: the red line is mentioned in a clause buried in a sentence that's otherwise about Obama's ultimate success in depriving Assad of chemical weapons: "Obama chose not to enforce the "red line" he had pledged[425] and, rather than authorize the promised military action against Assad, went along with the Russia-brokered deal that led to Assad giving up chemical weapons; however attacks with chlorine gas continued...." As you can see, the assertion about chem weapons doesn't even survive the sentence (chlorine gas is a chemical weapon.) More to the point, this incident is considered by many -- including many members of the Administration and even Sec. of State John Kerry -- to be a major low-point of the Obama years and a setback for American influence. 2. Obama's relations with Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike were toxic and sometimes hostile. Unmentioned here. 3. The "bowing" controversy. Again, not included. 4. The wide critique of the entire Arab Spring approach 5. Crimea.

For point of comparison, I'd point to the pages of Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden. Both give extensive attention to the controversies and perceived missteps of their subjects.

Bias and the process around it are the work of a lifetime in publishing, so it's no slight at all to the hard work that's gone into this page, but for whatever reason, Obama's page stands out among those of his peers. Not going all the way to hagiography, but...I don't think the original poster on this issue was too far off. 173.48.104.21 (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Ragnar, ragnarcarlson@gmail.com

The Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say. Much of the "harsh" criticism came from fringe media, which are not used here. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, forgive my lack of technical prowess and I hope I've located this correctly. To the assertion that most of the harsh criticism came from the fringe -- it's simply not the case. Obama made many missteps, as all presidents do; you didn't have to look to National Review or Commentary to read about them. Maybe this will be my entree into Wiki editing - I won't go on at length here in the Talk page but since the Red Line is the example at hand, here's Leon Panetta, Obama's own CIA chief and later Sec Def: "[Obama] sent a mixed message, not only to Assad, not only to the Syrians, but [also] to the world. And that is something you do not want to establish in the world, an issue with regard to the credibility of the United States to stand by what we say we’re gonna do."* It was a critical moment in the war and in the Administration, and the balance of opinion then and now holds that Obama erred. It has to be in there, in my view. If I can figure out how to work this contraption I'll prepare/propose some edits that might deepen and balance the article - i do hope those leading the work on this page (thank you btw) will consider some of these issues. Thank you again. -- Ragnar *https://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-interviews-leon-panetta-103323328.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.104.21 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

They will likely not be considered, no. Some criticism of his presidency is covered in the Presidency of Barack Obama, the Syrian criticism in particular can be found there at Presidency of Barack Obama#Syrian civil war. This is the biography of Obama himself, which, broadly, covers his presidency. It is not the place to list each and every nit one may have to pick with his career. ValarianB (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this article is unbalanced. Particularly the final paragraph of the lead reads like a glowing endorsement of Obama's presidency. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that what that sentence says is true, even if you disagree? HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's relevant to what I said. I didn't say the last paragraph was untrue, but that it's presented in a way which makes it sound like an endorsement of Obama and his presidency, particularly when compared with how other presidential biography articles are written, which is what the complaint is about. For example, shall we put in Trump's lead that the U.S. saw some of the best economic growth in its history for most of his presidency? Why not? You're also assuming that I disagree with the statement when I didn't say anything about whether I do or not. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2021

The last sentence in Section 3.2 "Domestic Policy" inaccurately states that, during his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama:

"promised the United States would have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and be 80% reliant on "clean" electricity."

President Obama did not promise that the U.S. would be 80% reliant on clean energy by 2015. The actual language from that Address was:

"Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources."

See https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_State_of_the_Union_Address ("Expenses": bullet point 3)

Setting a goal of the U.S. being 80% reliant on clean energy sources by 2035 is not a "promise" that it would be by 2015. Lightcar (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

I would like to replace the current pronunciation audio file with a much higher quality and louder file. NickRobbins13 (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. h 10:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image caption

I think the caption under the infobox image should simply say ″2012 portrait″ instead of ″Official portrait, 2012″. Having the word "official" in there is in my opinion quite redundant, because we can clearly see that Obama is posing in a formal manner. –Roopeank (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's harmless, and, making a WP:OTHER argument, it matches the immediate predecessor and successor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Family of Barack Obama

• Family of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could we have some opinions at the above article please. Specifically, are the ancestry charts starting at permalink desirable? See the article history. Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Info about drone strikes in Iraq?

While I don't think this should be added to the main article, this info should be added to one of the sub articles on foreign policy of Obama https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-drone-strikes/. X-Editor (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Both presidency and fp articles has drones, but nothing on drones in Iraq. Neither does Drone strike (by US), and there's no dedicated article like Drone strikes in Pakistan. Category:Deaths by United States drone strikes in Iraq exists. Your source has no details, but is perhaps good for "and in Iraq" at presidency/fp articles. Of course, there may be better sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Source on Obama's favourability in top section

Can we bring up a source/ref from the lower text to justify the last sentence above the contents block - this one:

"Obama's presidency has generally been regarded favorably, and evaluations of his presidency among historians, political scientists, and the general public frequently place him among the upper tier of American presidents."

I'm sure it's sourced later on, and I'm not sure what's protocol, but it looks questionable without a reference (next to other lines with references), especially given the subjective nature of Presidents' historical evaluations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.180.192.10 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The protocol is WP:LEADCITE, which can be read as "whatever editors thinks works best in this particular case." I think that in general, having no leadcites is to some extent seen as a mark of quality/stability. The cites in the article seems to be these: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

170.158.172.2 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

{School is too cool 0_0}

No edit requested, closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello can I request that you make it only for admins 2601:1C2:101:3480:1D0F:B662:4FA3:5613 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to fully protect this article. Acroterion (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I thinnk it should be semi protected 2601:1C2:101:3480:6C4E:310B:BAB0:DE2A (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"Although without a public health insurance option"

Is there a reason why this is included in the lead sentence about the ACA? It has no context and reads quite awkwardly. Obama himself downplayed the idea of a public option after getting elected. I think it's worth mentioning later in the article that Obama initially supported a public option and that it was removed from the bill, but mentioning it like this in the lead feels awkward and irrelevant. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't find any previous discussion on it, and have no opinion atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Post-presidency

Perhaps split off to a separate article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)