Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 83

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83

Description of Anwar al-Awlaki in lead

Hi Politicsfan4, let's discuss! I think describing Anwar al-Awlaki as "Yemeni" alone in the lead is misleading to the point of inaccuracy. Awlaki was born in the United States and held American citizenship his whole life. Not only that, but the reason Awlaki's killing is notable enough to be in the lead is because he was American - a number of other prominent Al-Qaeda guys were killed during Obama's tenure, but Awlaki stood out as a US citizen. That was the essence of the considerable controversy over his death. Describing him solely as Yemeni elides that important bit of history. I think "Yemeni-American" would be fine, but I think "American" is best - it doesn't matter what particular second nationality Awlaki was associated with, it matters that he an American suspected terrorist targeted for killing by the US government without trial. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A secondary issue, which I've just noticed, is that the mention of Awlaki in the lead is his only mention in the article. Leads should reflect the body of the article, so we should add some content somewhere in the body about Awlaki, or else remove reference to him from the lead. I'm in favor of the former. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ganesha811: On his main page, it describes him as "Yemeni-American" as well. Now that you have given more background, I'm honestly fine with anything - "Yemeni" or "American" is OK with me. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Politicsfan4, ok, sounds good! I'll change it to American for now, and if further consensus develops it can be changed again. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Anwar al-Awlaki should not be in the lead because he is not in the body, see WP:LEAD. Atm, I have no opinion on if he should be in the body, and even if that's reasonable, it's not certain he should be in the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

I would like to reconsider the image in the infobox for Obama. There is a similar discussion on Ronald Reagan's talk page here regarding changing the lead image for Reagan. The consensus there seems to favor the current image in the infobox which is his first term official portrait. I would like to know if using the current image which is his official portrait for his second term is still good to use or we should use his first term official portrait. The reason why I'm asking this is that the quality of the images is important to Wikipedia and according to the editors in the discussion I linked above, the older photo is a better quality image than the more recent image. So my question would be is recency important when deciding which photo to use? Interstellarity (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Images

  • First term portrait
    First term portrait
  • Second term portrait
    Second term portrait

Discussion

Pinging @Politicsfan4: for input about this discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_82#Recent_change_of_leadimage. Pinging participants JohnuniqFireandblood02SundaycloseSean Stephens. It's rather subjective, my preference lands on the newer image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Second term image - I see no basis for the argument that one image is "better quality". They're both more than acceptable quality and official portraits, and we usually use the most recent image. I don't even know why we're having this discussion. The image in the Reagan article is irrelevant to the Obama article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Second term image: More centred and recent image. Regardless, both could be used in the article regardless of this consensus; whichever one isn't chosen for the infobox should be included within the relevant presidency subsection. (Thanks for the ping Gråbergs Gråa Sång!) Sean Stephens (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Second term image - This seems quite obvious to me. We should use the more recent photo in the infobox, especially since it is higher quality in terms of pixels. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Fussy little link in a ref

I can't figure out current footnote 124 in subsection 1.3.2: "University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney". The link to Gray, Steven (September 10, 2008). "Taking professor Obama's class". Time. Retrieved January 30, 2010. is dead, but I can't find the ref! (How annoying!) There's some kind of crazy abbreviated format that doesn't include the name of the author, the date, or the title of the article. Here's the link to the article if somebody who can navigate this format would please insert it into the ref: http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1835238,00.html
Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Post-presidency 2

Does anyone else feel like the "Post-presidency" section has sprawled a bit and could use significant trimming? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Or split off to a sub-article. It's likely to have stuff added. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
At a glance, the "On May 16, 2020, Obama delivered..." text seems a little out of WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I plan on nominating this for FAR if this isn't addressed. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Good evening, this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Obama Childhood

I noticed that a recent edit got reverted about Obama's interaction with the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. I think that this is significant for this article as these are major religious books, and thus Obama interacting with them during his childhood would let the reader know about this. I propose adding the following in the same place from where it was reverted:

In his book ‘A Promised Land’, Obama tells that he spent his childhood years listening to the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.[1] Shakespeare143 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Barack Obama has a special place for India, says he spent childhood years listening to Ramayana & Mahabharata". The Economic Times.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Here is a link that works for me: [1]. Per article text, "spent his childhood years listening to" is an exagerration. The focus of the piece is his appreciation of Mahatma Gandhi, which may deserve a mention on WP somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Do we have info on his favorite cookies? The color of his naptime blanket? This is trivia, it does not belong in this article. ValarianB (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it is significant enough because this helps to contextualize his life in Indonesia. I do not think adding a paragraph with 5-10 sentences about how he listened to the Mahabharata and Ramayana would be good for the article, but rather that this single sentence would provide a lot of information. This also provides context for Obama's reasoning for why India "always had a special place in [his] imagination" (Obama wrote this). Obama says that perhaps it's because he spent time listening to the Mahabharata and Ramayana. Shakespeare143 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2021

"Debbie Wasserman Schultz was addressed as the purported sender of the packages" should be changed to "Debbie Wasserman Schultz was LISTED as the purported sender of the packages" or alternatively, "The name and address of Debbie Wasserman Schultz were listed on the packages as the purported sender." 73.37.114.76 (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Seems to make more sense that way. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Successful" military interventions?

The introduction refers to "successful military interventions in Iraq and Syria in response to gains made by ISIL after the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq." I believe that "successful" is inappropriate editorializing. Apart from the inherently subjectivity in judging a military action as "successful," these are both ongoing conflicts, so the outcome of U.S. intervention is inconclusive at best. The word is also not used in the text of the article, nor are these interventions characterized as "successful" within the article, meaning that its use in the introduction is inappropriate. I am seeking a thumbs up to remove the word "successful" or an explanation of why it was used or is justified. I understand that any edits to this article will be naturally controversial, so am hoping to be talked out of it. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

I suggest to change "He was born to an American mother of European descent and an African father" into "He was born to an American mother of European descent and a Kenyan father". 31.208.77.183 (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, if you'd bothered to read the rest of the paragraph, you will see why "African father" is the correct term for this sentence Zingarese talk · contribs 20:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
You're not wrong, Zingarese, but a little less WP:BITE wouldn't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Like the OP here, I'm not American, and I thought their suggestion a quite sensible one. "African" seems a very imprecise way of describing his father. It's obviously of significance that his father was a dark skinned person, and I would guess that's what that sentence is trying to tell us. Saying "African" doesn't tell us that. Many African people are not dark skinned. Is there something specific to American usage happening here? HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, please do that. "African" father is very unspecific. Kenya, like "America" is a country. 50.30.176.23 (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
"America" isn't a country really, it's technically not a continent neither. Canadians are also Americans since both countries are on the *North* American continent. The United States of America aka the USA is basically the same, and Mexico is the third country on the North American continent. The country of Canada has what is/are? called "Provinces and territories" in North America. Mexico is the third country on the North American continent. Nit-picky? Not really, it's actually geography; and I'm sure those who major in geography would expect it to be correctly named, right? IrishLas (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Surely all the countries southward to Panama are also in the continent of North America. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Martha's Vineyard

One of Barack Obama's residences is on Martha's Vineyard and I was wondering if it was notable enough to add there?

From the article: "In 2019, Barack and Michelle Obama bought a home on Martha's Vineyard from Wyc Grousbeck.[534][535]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

700 guests for birthday

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: - you [2] added to the article: Obama, for his 60th birthday, threw a party on the grounds of his Martha Vineyard mansion. The party had about 700 guests... Did it really? Your NBC Boston source [3] stated: Obama had originally planned a lavish birthday bash featuring nearly 700 guests and staff... Your New York Times source [4] said: Obama’s decision to cut back the reported 475-person guest list (a number that Mr. Obama’s camp never officially confirmed)... So, is your writing accurate? Which source gives the number of actual attendees? starship.paint (exalt) 06:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I dove in and rewrote it myself, 700 seems to be the hysterics of right-wing media, others more reputable report 475, and that the scaled-down number was 200. I was initially skeptical of the worthiness of inclusion at all, but its a nice slice-of-life blurb, and it did generate a fair bit of media buzz over the weekend. ValarianB (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Much appreciated, ValarianB, for the help. Iamreallygoodatcheckers - please be more careful next time. The next mistake may be harder to spot. starship.paint (exalt) 13:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks fairly reasonable atm, but a separate post precidency article is looking better and better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Yea it appears 475 was the original, scaled down to 200. I thought 700 sounded high too, who has 700 close friends and family you know haha. Anyway I'm glad you all noticed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of attorney from lead

Obama is not notable enough as an attorney for it to be in the lead sentence. It's WP:UNDUE. It should only say politician. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Per Barack_Obama#University_of_Chicago_Law_School_and_civil_rights_attorney it doesn't seem unreasonable to include the word, but that's my opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What is required for a descriptor or profession to be sufficiently notable? Iluien theIlluminator (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

In this context, it should fit the guidance at MOS:LEAD. For example, the lead doesn't mention that he is a basketball player or that he is rather tall. Those aren't his professions, but anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021

Typos and missing words in post presidency section. "Endorsed" missing. "Minister" misspell.

Current:

On October 16, 2019, five days ahead of the Canadian federal election, Obama publicly Canadian Prime Miniter Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party for re-election 68.162.104.119 (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for alerting us. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 Already done by HiLo48 Elli (talk | contribs) 04:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Post-presidency section and FAR

Hi watch page editors: at this article's FAR, it was commented that the Post-presidency section was bloated. I agree with that statement. In an effort to WP:BEBOLD, I am conducting a copyedit of that section to remove things that I perceive as off-topic or too much detail. I am not well versed in previous discussions about this article, and I will probably remove things that others find important. Please feel free to put information back into the article that I remove, but if you do so please make a note of it below so that it can be discussed further. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As I conducted my copyedit, I noticed some statements that I hope others can help me with. Please see below:

  • "The family currently rents a house in Kalorama, Washington, D.C." Per WP:PRECISELANG Wikipedia wants to avoid words like "currently" as it can become dated. Does the family still rent this house?
  • This section has a lot of information about Obama's endorsements after leaving office. Should this stay as necessary information to understand Obama's biography, or is it too much detail and should be removed or trimmed down? I think the only endorsement that should stay is the 2020 endorsement for Joe Biden, since it is a US political endorsement.
  • "Obama intends for the foundation to be the central focus of his post-presidency and part of his ambitions for his subsequent activities following his presidency to be more consequential than his time in office" This does not feel like encyclopedic language, as it does not describe specific goals or initiatives that the foundation is undertaking. Can it be removed or reworded?
  • "On September 1, 2018, Obama and his wife Michelle Obama, along with former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and their spouses attended the funeral of Sen. John McCain of Arizona at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. On December 5, 2018, Obama and his wife attended the funeral of former president George H. W. Bush, along with former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and then-President Donald Trump and their spouses. " Both of these sentences need citations.
  • "On October 29, 2019, Obama criticized "wokeness" and call-out culture at the Obama Foundation's annual summit." I think this is too much detail. Anyone object to its removal?
  • "In early December 2020, Obama criticized the "defund the police" slogan, claiming that it could derail social justice activists' attempts at making change and that "you lost a big audience the minute you say it."" Is this necessary in the article, or is it too much detail?
  • Is the Nov/Dec. 2017 international trip necessary for this article, or can it be removed for being too much detail?
  • I think the May/June commencement speech section is too large, and perhaps can be cut or trimmed. Thoughts?

I look forward to reading your comments. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hiroshima Speech

The article says the bombing of Hiroshima ended ww2, but it didn't end until some days after the second bomb was dropped. Shall I just get rid of "that ended World War II."? Netanyahuserious (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: "Japan surrendered to the Allies on 15 August, six days after the Soviet Union's declaration of war and the bombing of Nagasaki." How about "71 years after the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, near the end of World War II."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That sounds much better. Netanyahuserious (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

And, was there Speech regarding the victims of COVID 19( US Americans). NetanyahuseriousNr2 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea, but if there is, it probably won't fit the "Presidency (2009–2017)" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Obama is first US president to born outside mainland

I really don't saw any correlation between this revert and its description: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=1060011430

Why I can't write this proven fact down to this article? He was born in Hawaii. Penjogjoposioćio (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not notable. Just trivia EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"Neutrality disputed"? Sez who?

A "neutrality disputed" tag was recently added to the article by User:X-Editor. The tag says that "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page". This is the talk page; where is the discussion? What is being challenged so seriously as to need a neutrality tag?

The edit summary that went with this tag referenced the Wikipedia:Featured article review. I took a look at that discussion. Most of it has to do with bloat and attempts to trim the size of the article, focused on the suggestion to split out a separate Post-presidency article. There are also a few (two) comments pointing out instances of possible imbalance or unnecessary detail. Those corrections can be made and some have already been made; FAs do get tweaked as needed. But I don't see any justification for disfiguring a Featured Article with such a tag, which casts a pall of doubt over the whole page - a page which is viewed tens of thousands of times a day. I especially object to it given the absence of any such objection or discussion here at the talk page. I would like to see the tag removed, and I solicit other people's opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I thought it might have been necessary since concerns were raised, but discussion is still ongoing, so I've decided to remove the tag. X-Editor (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
No problem, hopefully the issues are sorted out in the review. X-Editor (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

Obama was first elected in 2009. 96.246.90.202 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Your request is not clear. Obama was first elected President in 2008, but was inaugurated as President in 2009. Acroterion (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

Since the featured article review failed to adequately address the bias and neutrality issues, should we put a neutrality tag on the top of the article? X-Editor (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to read Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive11 to try to form an opinion on that, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
A tag requires justification here. Opinions elsewhere do not count. What text shows "bias and neutrality issues" and why? How about just editing to fix the claimed issues? Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I'm referring to neutrality issues brought up in the latest featured article review. X-Editor (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks but that information is redundant for anyone who can read this short section. Regardless of what some people did somewhere else, tags must be justified here, as per my above comment. Otherwise, anyone can remove the tag. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Barack Obama's Race

The first paragraph of this article states Obama "was the first African-American president of the United States." This is untrue. Barack Obama is a "mulatto" or "bi-racial" person. His mother was white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD8B:68F0:10CD:4908:4A0E:8A5C (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Please have a read of the Frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of this page, Q2 in particular. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Right Wing Fake Outrage

you need to put in something about Obama's comments about a real case of sexual assault that he called fake outrage. On Monday, juvenile court judge Pamela Brooks ruled that the boy - who has not been named - did force himself on the 15-year-old girl on May 28 in the bathroom at Stone Ridge High School in Leesburg, Virginia. He needs to aplolige to parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.9 (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Any source for this? Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Not significant enough for the article. There's been a little commentary - "outrage" - about his comment, but only in right-wing sources like the New York Post. Here is a sample. But there has not been enough or widespread enough coverage for this article. BTW he was not talking about the particular incident; he was talking generically about "these phony trumped-up culture wars, this fake outrage that right-wing media peddles to juice their ratings." That Virginia incident had nothing to do with bathroom gender or other trans issues as the Republicans are trying to make it. The girl herself says the two of them had deliberately met in the girls room for sex twice before, but this time he forced her, presumably to do things she didn't want to do. That's a crime and the guy should pay for it. But it had nothing to do with the right-wing concern about who should use what bathroom.[5] -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about whether the content warrants inclusion, but there are at least four problems with the response to the suggestion to include Obama's comments about "fake outrage" and "culture wars" during the historic Virginia 2021 election (in which the candidate that Obama endorsed and campaigned for, Terry McAuliffe, lost surprisingly to Republican Glenn Youngkin in a blue state that Biden won only the year before). The topic is deemed "not significant enough" and represented as "only [covered] in right wing sources". But, the topic is at least worthy of talk discussion, because:

  1. it's not true that only "right-wing" sources covered it,
  2. we don't evaluate sources only by whether they are "right wing", rather by whether they are deemed reliable by Wikipedia, or need attribution as opinion,
  3. the google search provided did not include the more useful keyword "culture wars", and
  4. even if only "right-wing" sources cover a story, WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia

    represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all …

In the US, conservatives do not represent a minority, much less a "tiny minority", and the issue was not only covered by conservative sources, but was also well covered by non-conservative sources.
See WP:RSP on The Atlantic, Axios, Bloomberg, Fox News, WP:VANITYFAIR and others.
  • The Atlantic and Vanity Fair (not "right-wing sources") [6] specifically cover Obama’s role in the historic Virginia 2021 elections:

    Youngkin’s victory is a kind of road map that other Republicans can use to run successful campaigns over the coming years. To respond effectively, Democrats will have to stop dismissing concerns over curricular “fake outrage.”

    Of note: the “fake outrage” link goes to the Vanity Fair article about Obama's Virginia campaign statements relating to “fake outrage”, and The Atlantic specifically singles this out as a factor in the elections.
  • Washington Post, a prominent and very liberal source, whose editorial board singles out Obama for the Virginia issue: [7]

    Apparently, moms and dads don't like being called terrorists. Nor do they appreciate it when former president Barack Obama shows up at a rally for McAuliffe and accuses them of "fake outrage" and stoking "phony, trumped-up culture wars".

  • Washington Post [8]

    Former president Barack Obama delivered a full-throated endorsement of Virginia's Democratic ticket here Saturday, describing the election next month as determining the future of the state and setting an example for the nation. … Obama also slammed the Republican for fanning "phony trumped-up culture wars" by stoking conservative anger over what's taught in public schools.

  • NBC News, (not a “right-wing source”) [9]:

    Pence criticized former President Barack Obama who said recently while campaigning for McAuliffe that voters should ignore the "fake outrage" and "phony trumped-up culture wars" being promoted on the right, particularly as it relates to the education system. The "outrage isn't fake, it's real," Pence said. "And it's grounded in love for this country and their kids."

  • Salon.com, (not a "right-wing source"): [10]:

    Obama also attacked Youngkin for focusing on manufactured outrage over school curricula. "We don't have time to be wasting on these phony trumped-up culture wars, this fake outrage that right-wing media peddles to juice their ratings," he said Saturday. "And the fact that he's willing to go along with it, instead of talking about serious problems that actually affect serious people. That's a shame."

  • Bloomberg, (not a "right-wing source") [11]:

    Former President Barack Obama waded into Virgina’s gubernatorial race, criticizing Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin for supporting “phony, trumped-up culture wars” in his bid to flip the state.

  • Rollcall [12]

    What’s more, as McAuliffe’s lead steadily slipped away, top Democrats flashed an inability or unwillingness to take concerns over school curriculum, critical race theory and other matters seriously. “We don’t have time to be wasted on these phony trumped-up culture wars, this fake outrage the right-wing media peddles to juice their ratings,” former President Barack Obama said while campaigning in Virginia on Oct. 23.

  • The New Yorker magazine (not a "right wing source") [13] broadly covered Obama's speech in Virginia.
  • Axios [14]

    The Virginia governor's race has drawn attention even from former President Obama for the presence of what he called "phony culture wars" and "fake outrage" from the right-wing political and media sphere.

Summary: plenty of non-"right wing" reliable sources covered the topic, I haven't even listed all the conservative coverage, which is broad, but even if the sources were only conservative, conservatives do not represent a "tiny minority" so NPOV says we should include these viewpoints, and Obama's position vis-a-vis a historical election in which the candidate he campaigned for lost rather rather noticeably seems worthy of mention, as Obama was also singled out by left-wing sources as having missed the boat on this one.

This exclusion of information based on "only right wing sources" is ironic in an article that seems to have no problem using WP:HUFFPOST (see Politics entry), or using sources like Politico and The Hill for the post-presidential section, or including a rental home in the Post-presidential section, where this content would fit (The family currently rents a house in Kalorama, Washington, D.C.), among other examples of what looks like uneven application of standards for inclusion here. And, there is already a sentence in post-Presidential about wokeness and cancel culture, where one little sentence about a glaring Virginia fail would fit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on the relatively broad range of sourcing provided by SandyGeorgia describing this issue it definitely warrants some mention in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I am completely against adding anything about this. SandyGeorgia did find legit sources from across the spectrum about it, but why are we adding it? Because it was in the news? See WP:NOTNEWS. If every story about Obama that was covered across the spectrum was added to this article, how long do you think it would get? Obama made a comment about "phony culture wars" in the context of an election campaign, and not one of his. What does it say about him, biographically? Nothing that I can determine. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I think mentioning it along with advocating for McAuliffe would be ok. That was a notable endorsement of a prominent election. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2022

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

barack obama was dealing with racism in his childhood 216.185.74.218 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2022 (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. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

FAQ #6

Given that the answer leads with "...a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article," I find that laughable because the page Public image of Barack Obama very much fits the description of an entire article "dedicated solely to praise," since any criticism or controversy is either heavily downplayed or removed outright. Under the "Public Image" section alone, the article heavily suggests that Obama had virtually near-universal support, evidenced from an intentionally misleading subsection that Obama was favored by conservatives before stating in the actual body that only 5-7% supported him (a very small minority).

The article in question could use a lot more objectivity by adding significant controversies and other criticisms to make a more objective approach at his public image rather than heavily slanted praise that this FAQ explicitly states is "an indication of a poorly-written article." By contrast, the page Public image of George W. Bush is the opposite, and is heavily negative (multiple controversies listed), with few positives that are also somewhat downplayed. Devious Diamondback (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Devious Diamondback, if you're looking to discuss Public image of Barack Obama, then you should be doing so at Talk:Public image of Barack Obama, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
And please don't compare pages for different POTUS who are different people with different records and, therefore, different public images. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

India trip contradiction

"In mid-1981, Obama traveled to Indonesia to visit his mother and half-sister Maya, and visited the families of college friends in Pakistan and India for three weeks." No source for the India part of the trip in the citations, and this is contradicted by Obama's statement in A Promised Land: "I'd never to India before [this official trip as president], but the country had always held a special place in my imagination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.132.238 (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed, as I was also unable to find a mention of India in the citation. ValarianB (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

I am a knowledgeable person and would like to add facts about Obama that I know. 25baseball25 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2022 (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) 16:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP may be of interest. You knowing it is not enough. And you shouldn't add stuff like [15] to any WP-article, for a number of reasons. Not that it wasn't an adorable picture. Obama was good at adorable:[16]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

?

@Nythar, why did you manually archive this page? The bot is set to leave the 4 latest threads independent of age, so people can see the latest discussions, even if it's been awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, per WP:TPO, don't remove other peoples comments from article talkpages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Please see your talk page. Nythar (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I saw it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Quotes

Why is one unable to submit words or quotes for person(s)? 75.109.193.4 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. There's a page for quotes at q:Barack Obama. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Kunduz hospital strike

Why is the Kunduz hospital airstrike mentioned in the lead section, which is supposed to summarize the article, even though it is not even present in the main body? Leontrooper (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree and removed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

BLP?

@SPECIFICO You're going to have to be more specific, what part of BLP are you referring to? X-Editor (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry, but is it somehow in dispute that Obama a. ordered the drone strike, and b. ordering the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen was controversial? nableezy - 02:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No source in this article for "controversially ordered". SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, it says the killing was controversial in the foreign policy section. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
It. Was. Unsourced. Unsourced article text is not a source for lead text. P,ease see WP:V SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Was trivial to find sources for that, cmon. Anwar al-Awlaki has a ton if you wanted to look for some. But yeah, the sourcing was poor in the body, but been beefed up now. This was among the most controversial acts of his presidency, on the merits, do you dispute it belongs in the lead? nableezy - 12:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stay within the bounds of the issue under discussion. And I'm sure you agree it's unacceptable to claim unsourced article text as a source for lead content. The citations help our readers to understand the brief paraphrased representations of significant events in the article text. I will do a CE on the lead text, which is poorly worded. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
It is no longer unsourced in the body. If youd like a source in the lead sure. My question is do you have a reason besides the easily provided lack of a source for inclusion in the lead. Why are you removing that it was controversial from the lead? nableezy - 13:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe that everyone saw your addition of a source. Nobody has said it is still unsourced (which was the reason it was removed, as stated iin my first post above) or that a duplicate source in the lead is required. I've edited the lead text, where I think "controversially ordered" is UNDUE, and narratives as to the issue of his US citizenship might be OK for this article and would certainly be DUE in other articles more closely related to this event than this page about Obama's life story, where the dissent is not a significant ongoing factor. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The argument that this page is about Obama's life story makes zero sense. Every single paragraph of the lead is at least partially about his presidency. The first introduces him as 44th President of the United States. The second ends with his campaign and election. The entirety of third and fourth paragraphs are about his presidency, and the last paragraph begins with the presidency and its legacy. WP:LEAD requires notable controversies about a subject be included, that seems to be completely ignored here. I dont understand why you feel like including the word controversial transforms it into an UNDUE weight issue. nableezy - 14:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Every paragraph in the lead, yes. Every paragraph/section in the body (also "page"), no. It's possible the lead should have more pre/post president stuff. Anwar al-Awlaki is mentioned in the FP section atm, that much is clear. He wasn't when I removed him from the lead in March last year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, of course the article covers more, but the idea that the lead isnt largely focused on his presidency and as such should not include one controversial aspect of it is to me a non-starter. nableezy - 14:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I question whether this drone operation belongs in the lead. It is not among the most significant facts about Obama's life and work. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I pretty much agree. The lead is already a little lengthy, and this lead should be more for the broad points, not one drone strike. It seems a little insignificant. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Fwiw, here is an earlier discussion on WP:LEAD-content: Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_82#Hiroshima_speech. It may have derailed a bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, like everything else in the lead should be, thats well sourced in the body. nableezy - 04:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Well I suppose it wasnt, but it is now. nableezy - 04:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I support the addition. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My observation

Hello everyone, I was gathering materials for literature review on the past leaders of the United States and something caught my attention on this page. I noticed inconsistency in the IPA used for the transcription of the name-- Barack Obama which I think is inappropriate. To be precise, I observe the the schwa /ә/ is represented in the transcription of "Barack", while in the diphthong which initiates Obama, the schwa is replaced with a different phoneme. That is, instead of /әʊ/, the variant /oʊ/ is used. I think this is rather infelicitous.

I would like to know whether there is a reason for this substitution. Does this substitution have anything to do with the specific guidelines of the Wikipedia? Margob28 (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

New Portrait

Are we able to use the new portrait unveiled today? Nerguy (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope so! The chances of it being uploaded to Wikicommons are quite high. --88.108.44.8 (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. Template:PD-USGov doesn't obviously apply, but maybe it does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Support for Hillary Clinton in 2016 election worth a mention in the lead?

Obama supported Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election, is this worth a mention in the lead of this article? 88.108.44.8 (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Afaict it's not mentioned in this article at all, so per WP:LEAD, no. I see it's mentioned at Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#2016_elections_and_transition_period. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Good point! --88.108.44.8 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably worth a mention in the body that he endorsed her after the DC primary, but that might be about it. Maybe a line about campaigning for her too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Barack Obama page, opening paragraph

Someone has messed with the opening paragraph, and it now essentially reads “Barack Obama is a Muslim.” Please fix! 2600:6C64:687F:F7AE:2406:D3A1:9365:330E (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone did add this to the article about 16 hours ago. It was instantly removed and the user blocked. Favonian (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a cacheing issue -- I still see the vandalism in incognito but not when signed in. Pas28 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Kunduz hospital airstrike not mentioned anywhere?

It used to be on his page. It's something he permitted under his administration, and I'm certain it would be on someone's page if it wasn't Obama who did it. Cawseases (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:POINT... is it mentioned on Presidency of Barack Obama? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be, not in Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration either. But there's an article: Kunduz hospital airstrike. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I added it:[17]. We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång, that addition seems reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
It's UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed that this does not seem noteworthy in the top level biographical article on Obama. Even in a book length biography I would be surprised if it got more than a sentence mention. VQuakr (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. I tried to test your book length biography hypothesis. This is what I came up with:[18][19][20][21][22]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I see all "no results" except for the last one, which shows a single sentence. Are you agreeing with me, or maybe there's an issue with the English->Swedish->English translation of the books? What do you see? VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I was agreeing that per this 30-min scholarship of mine, you have a point. WP:RS isn't the "problem", WP:NPOV is what we're looking at now. I wonder how common it is that heads of state apologize for this kind of thing (of course, not many of them have the firepower). Do we have a "List of apologies" somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a brief summary article about his bio, not his presidency or his conduct of the war, or other topics for which this detail is more significant. those books don't support inclusion of such content in this article. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Obama's last name" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Obama's last name and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 16#Obama's last name until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 00:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

See?

Remove "Hussein" and II from the beginning of the article Tristancapuzzi (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? That's his name. Compare Bill Clinton or Donald Trump. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

He is known by his full name more than most former presidents, so I think it's fitting. FreshTec843 (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence...

I know there is a note stating that the lead sentence should stay as is, but in the end, he IS a New York Times best selling author. If this were just a couple books he wrote and distributed a limited amount of, I'd understand that. But for the sheer number of book sales and how popular they were, I feel like it would make sense to say ".....an author and American politician....". Interested to hear everyone's thoughts. FreshTec843 (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead section already contains the following sentence: "Outside of politics, Obama has published three bestselling books: Dreams from My Father (1995), The Audacity of Hope (2006) and A Promised Land (2020)." His books are listed again in the body of the article. The primary reason for his notability is his career as a politician and former president; were it not for that career, it is unlikely that he would have ultimately been a "best selling" author. I believe this aspect of his biography is already sufficiently discussed, and I oppose the inclusion of " an author and" in the first sentence of the lead as you have proposed. General Ization Talk 05:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

While his political position undoubtedly helped the popularity of his book sales, 2 of the 3 books were written before he was elected president and one was written before he ever held public office at any level. I acknowledge that you do make some good points of your own on why to leave it be, but I still believe it deserves a little more consideration. FreshTec843 (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Labels

Since he was raised by his English-American mother, isn't it sexist to label him African?

And since his father was Kenyan, isn't it inappropriate to generalize using the African label? 193.242.214.5 (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Read the FAQ for this page. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

African American

As a European I would find it more appropriate to refer to Obama as a person with mixed African and European ancestry or part Black and part White.

By contrast, he is now called an African American as if he were just black. This could be explained by the "one drop rule" from the days of slavery by which a child always picks up the lower race from mixed parents. Who would want to stick to this rule now?

I'm not going to edit it myself as a foreigner, but I woul appreciate some feedback, and maybe a U.S. person can clarify the article on this point.

Aecur (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aecur See "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage. If you're not on a laptop (or in desktop view) you probably have to tap something to see it. Basically, WP:RS generally call him African American, so WP does too, since it aims to summarize WP:RS on a topic. One drop rule has some historical background. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for pointing this out. I agree that the vast majority of reliable sources label him as the first African American president and he himself does, too. This settles the case based on the relevant rules.
The actual situation of his origin an upbringing is clearly described in the article so everybody can make their conclusions based on those. ---- Aecur (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
People absolutely make different conclusions: African_Americans#Terminology_dispute. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Mention of him campaigning for candidates in the current midterm elections are worth a mention in the lead

The fact Obama campaigned for candidates in the 2018 midterm elections are mentioned in the lead, can it also be added to the lead that he's doing the same in the current midterm elections? 92.15.144.174 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Greetings, i wanted to added several information on Barack Obama's education section by adding State Elementary School Menteng 01. I hope to edit the article for better quality and more information. RANDOM USER2121 (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
That school is mentioned in the article. What did you intend to add, based on which sources? If it's reasonable content but out of WP:PROPORTION here, Early life and career of Barack Obama may be a better target. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Penny Pritzker & the Pritzker Family

How do you have an article on Barack Obama without mentioning Obama's mentor, Penny Pritzker, or the backing of the Pritzker family? Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Because referring to Penny Pritzker as a mentor is a significant stretch. Influential donor, advisor, and campaign strategist whose family certainly provided financial support to Obama's campaign? Yes. Worth a mention somewhere. But she also served as his Commerce Secretary and their history as friends going back to his days as a professor are documented in her article. "Mentor" is not a good choice of word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.8.116 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation style

The citation style is currently inconsistent; needs a change to {{sfn}} with works moved to the bibliography section. It's currently quite hard to find which book supports which statement. DFlhb (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Marital status of father

I find the text " Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr. (1934–1982), was a married Luo Kenyan from Nyang'oma Kogelo" kind of unclear. A reader who sees the father was married to the mother (Dunham) at the time of birth could assume this is in reference this marriage (to Dunham), something rather typical, and not needing three citations. But, of course, it's really referring to the fact that the father didn't divorce his first (Kenyan) wife. Even it was clear in meaning, I think adding an adjective isn't a great way of mentioning the topic. So, we should either have a sentence explicitly stating the marriage situation, or not mention it at all. --Rob (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2023

76.72.134.48 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Í need to edit for someone

 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) 22:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ungrammatical sentence in lede?

This sentence: “ Obama also appointed Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the former became the first Hispanic American on the Supreme Court.”

It seems grammatically incorrect to me -- the punctuation should be a semicolon, or there should be a conjunction there. 2405:201:E00B:6E35:A429:8F69:3C87:EAE (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made a tiny change which hopefully addresses the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

"Bacak Obama" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bacak Obama and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 11 § Bacak Obama until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 02:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2023

TLDR; make the first appearance of the term "African American" the link to that related page.

I was playing wikispeedruns, trying to get from The Times to African-Americans. I did it in 2 clicks, by going through Barack Obama. But, it is only at the 6th time that the term African-American is used, that it is actually a link. I would like to see this changed to the first appearance of the term, like usual. RJTimmerman (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - I agree with this change, and I think it makes sense per wikipedia policy with regard to links - if this term is linked, it should occur on the first usage. HOWEVER - there's already a comment in the lede saying "do not link this," so clearly there is at least one person who disagrees. As such, this is not an uncontroversial change that I can make as a response to an edit request. And the archives for this page are understandably staggering, so the fact that I didn't find any discussion of this specific micro-issue doesn't mean it isn't there.

So... RJTimmerman and I think that the wikilink should be moved to the first occurrence. Other thoughts? PianoDan (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but it was probably like that in the first place per MOS:OL. Nonetheless, I think it is fine to move it to that unless there is a good reason otherwise. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Retract that- I agree with the comment, it really isn't needed there. I think the best place to first link it would be the 2nd non-quote usage ("He became the first African-American to be elected president"). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I am closing this request pending further feedback. I agree with Eejit43's suggestion to add the link at the 2nd non-quote use. Still, I think we need to wait a little longer, since this was apparently part of a discussion way back. I'd say if no objections are made within another week, the edit could be implemented; feel free to ping me when you reopen the request RJTimmerman. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
@Eejit43 made a good point with the MOS:OL (I don't often edit articles, and hadn't considered overlinking before). I agree that moving it to the 2nd non-quote use of the term would be better. RJTimmerman (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 Done ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Topic about Barack Obama's age.

I think you are wrong about his age. He is only 62 years old not 61 years old. He was born in 1961, and now I found his age in 2023 is 62 years old. Please fix his age. JimiDragon (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

JimiDragon, Obama was born in August 1961, so he turns 62 this coming August. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, are you sure? :think: JimiDragon (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes we are sure. He's 61 till his birthday in August. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I'll try to remember his age. I thought he is 62 years old, nah, he is only 61 years old. :) Thanks. :heart: JimiDragon (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

Obama was a member of the Democrat Party, not democratic. The word democratic is an adjective pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy. 2601:205:380:5A10:1037:DA00:C529:F681 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: It is Democratic Party. See Democratic_Party_(United_States) RudolfRed (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
And Democrat Party (epithet). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia, you gotta love it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Split article for post-presidency?

Is Obama's post-presidency notable enough for a split article? 2.97.212.181 (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. The section's too short to warrant a split article. Wow (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
It is to some extent kept short per WP:PROPORTION. In a separate article, the subject would have more room to run. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I see what you're talking about now, but what would you include in a separate article on his post-presidency? Wow (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, take for example the Obama/Springsteen podcast. It wouldn't be that hard to turn that section into a paragraph or two.[23] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2023

Obama ethnically isn’t african-american. African-american refers to the decedents of the african slaves brought to the USA. Obama’s father was born in Kenya, therefore the correct term to use for Barrack would either be Kenyan american, or black american. African american≠ black people in america nor can it be used universally to replace black. Considering every black american as african-american is like considering every asian-american as chinese. Easytoremember5712 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Are you aware of where Kenya is located? And African-american refers to the decedents of the african slaves brought to the USA is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

1st black president

Obama was the first black president. 192.68.163.171 (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the second sentence of the lead, Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, was the first African-American president of the United States, pretty well covers that angle, don't you? General Ization Talk 20:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
black ≠ african-american, not every black person in the USA is ethnically african american and this includes Obama. His father was born in Kenya. Easytoremember5712 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Kenya is in Africa. Obama was born in Hawaii, one of the 50 United States of America. Ergo, African-American.$chnauzer 22:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Civil rights lawyer in lede

As per other Presidents’ pages (see George Bush, Bill Clinton etc), I am not sure whether and why it is appropriate to have Obama’s civil rights lawyer career mentioned in the very first para. To my knowledge he was not well known as a civil rights lawyer. Once president, that background became known and important, but hardly more so than Bush’s oil industry background etc. I don’t care whether it’s mentioned or not, just the inconsistency between similar wiki pages is what is irking me. Cbe46 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Command responsibility for Killing of Osama bin Laden?

I did notice the Nobel Peace Prize, but I'm curious whether it may be worth discussing this slight discrepancy between ostensibly presented morals and actual behavior. Of course, I ask this in the politest possible manner. I'd like to hope that the decision made by the Nobel Foundation was not in error.

Certainly it can be hard at times to assign Command responsibility. Maybe more experienced editors than me can take a look. Theheezy (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

You may be asking this in the politest possible manner, but I have no idea what your are talking about. Precisely what IS "this slight discrepancy between ostensibly presented morals and actual behavior"? HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I certainly hope that the person I read about in his autobiographies would understand that it may be a possibility that promoting peace may involve letting bygones be bygones (as far as geopolitics is concerned). This becomes a little complicated when there is a Nobel Peace Prize involved.
Of course, I certainly can't judge. Time will tell. Nonetheless, figuring out the Command responsibility would be a wonderful addition to wikipedia. Theheezy (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I still have no idea what your are talking about. Are you commending or condemning Obama? HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Neither. I am merely asking whether it is established that he has Command responsibility here? Theheezy (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
what you are attempting here is original research,which is not allowed in the wikipedia. you want to make a point about how it is contradictory that someone who gives a kill order against an international terrorist can also be awarded a peace prize. this is not the venue for that sort of commentary. ValarianB (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Let’s be precise. There’s no policy in place for using Wikipedia talk pages to conduct original research. 124.197.65.219 (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Not a policy, but WP:TALKOFFTOPIC applies. Per OP, I don't think WP:REFDESK fits either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
And what would be the discrepancy? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
·sigh· As with all Nobel prizes, the Peace Prize is not a blanket "you have peaceful morals" or "you brought world peace" or "you are a pacifist that never uses military force" prize. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, similarly, is not a blanket "you are the King/Queen/Best Ever At Chemistry" prize. These prizes are given for specific reasons, discoveries, actions, etc., and the prize announcements specifically say what it is a person got the prize for. So, let's look at what Obama was awarded the Peace Prize for. His prize was for his work on diplomacy and international cooperation, both towards denuclearization, and strengthening dialogue to resolve international conflicts. He did not get the Peace Prize for never using military force. In fact, using military force in concert with other nations when necessary is fully within the scope of why he was given the Peace Prize in the first place. The only possible discrepancy I see is that, in the particular strike against bin Laden, he didn't coordinate with Pakistan. That's it. Not that he used military force, not that he gave the kill order, just that he didn't coordinate with Pakistan in doing the strike. Even then, it's a pretty big stretch, since bin Laden was considered a dangerous terrorist by international bodies and organizations. People need to stop treating the Peace Prize as if its a "you're a hippie who would never kill a fly" prize. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

This is the only president of the United States whose citizenship is listed in the infobox. While this is of course a fact (and also quite obvious... the American president is... American), it really looks like youʼre pandering to the racists. I suggest you remove it. 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:61A6:43BB:1B95:6A51 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this. We should not pander to birthers. Do others agree or disagree? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, agree. Hey, even the birthers will like to see the removal. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I also agree. "Citizenship" is not a thing that need be listed in the inbox of any article of a US President (as pointed out by the OP, it is a no-brainer) and there are no extenuating circumstances that warrant an exception here (sorry-not-sorry, birthers).A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't check every president, but I checked the successors, and the predecessors back to Reagan. Good catch, removed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Upper tier of presidents?

Obama's page last month said correctly, that he was ranked in the "middle to upper tier of presidents". Now, without consensus, someone changed it to say "upper tier" only. Another editor wrote that on Reagan's page (that puts him in similar placements on the tier list as Barack Obama) - Reagan was "Higher than any President since LBJ except for Obama. In the public opinion polls, in 4 from 2014 to 2018 (by Quinnipiac University & Morning Consult poll), Reagan is at the top in all 4 as 'Best president since World War II'. In the 2021 Gallup poll, among the Presidents from Kennedy to Trump, Reagan's weighted average comes in only behind Kennedy and Obama (and just barely in the case of Obama). So I don't know that there is any basis to say 'his reputation has declined'" Yet, Reagan's page only states that he is in the middle to upper tier of presidents. There is a double standard being held on Wikipedia. Obama is not ranked universally as the top 4 of US Presidents in history and neither is Reagan. Therefore, this current edit needs to be fixed; editors should stop changing edits without consensus. Can the original edit of "middle to upper tier" be restored for Obama? 2600:1700:D090:3250:D4C3:3AE9:8F20:6660 (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. The removal of "middle" (which didn't have an edit summary) was made a few days ago. Wow (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
No objection. That "Rankings by scholars and historians, in which he has been featured since 2010, place him in the middle to upper tier of American presidents." sentence seems a little WP:LEAD-only, I didn't see any other mention of his "score". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you for the edit! 2600:1700:D090:3250:D568:8E62:71F6:2EBB (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2023

[1] 

Karan Lonkar (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ LONKAR, KARAN. "Barack Obama Leader of the US of America". Marathi info.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

Change the word 'economists' to a capital letter just under the diagrams in the economic policy section of his presidency Samcast12345 (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that your stance is that economist is a proper noun, which it isn't, so that shouldn't be capitalized; in any case, you should be autoconfirmed and thus able to edit this page now, so  Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 20:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Last paragraph in lead content

I think that the following sentence During Obama's terms as president, the United States' reputation abroad, as well as the American economy, significantly improved. should be removed from the last paragraph of the lead. It sounds too subjective and not necessarily in line with other president biographies on en-wiki. There is already sufficient WP:DUE content in the lead to determine his accomplishments. Is anyone opposed to this? Ppt91talk 19:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and done. No specific evidence presented. Foreign Perception section refers specifically to him. Martindo (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

LGBT?

In the 198os, Obama wrote a letter talking about himself being "androgynous" and fantasizing about sexual relationship with men when he said he was “mak[ing] love to men daily, but in the imagination”[1][2] Can we add LGBT tags? 104.255.169.111 (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Categorizing based solely on a 40 year-old letter to a an ex-girlfriend would not be in keeping with WP:BLP or WP:DUE. So that would be a no. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

While the source may be older, we can't deny that he has or at last had feelings for men that were sexual in the past. Barack Obama himself confirmed this. Also, how would it be against WP:BLP exactly if they are his exact words? 104.152.222.36 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPSELFPUB allows self-referenced sources, but they should not be given special weight. Privacy is also a concern in this case.
"There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;[d]
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
the article is not based primarily on such sources." Martindo (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nypost.com/2023/08/12/barack-obama-told-ex-i-make-love-to-men-daily-but-in-the-imagination/
  2. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/i-make-love-to-men-daily-but-when-barack-obama-shared-his-androgynous-feelings-in-1982-love-letters-101691897862760.htmlM

My copyediting was reverted. Can we discuss this, please?

@ValarianB reverted my edit. Here you can see the before and after of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=1179538461&oldid=1179076229.

Being somewhat new to Wikipedia, I was not sure what to do, and so I went to the Teahouse where I started a discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#I_improved_the_English_of_part_of_an_article_and_it_was_reverted. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoingBatty suggested I start a discussion on the article's talk page and invite the reverter to discuss it.

I would appreciate it if ValarianB would go into some more detail about what is wrong with my edit. "Middle school grammar", which I take to mean the type of grammar taught in middle school, sounds like "correct grammar" to me, so I think I can take that as a compliment.

PS Here is copy of the argument (which I still stand by, except that I would like to add that I will be taking much more care in future with my edit summaries, the importance of which I am now more aware than before) that I made in my OP at the Teahouse:

" About one hour ago, I improved a sentence in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama by adding a few commas and connecting words, which made it clearer, and more of a pleasure to read, especially if you don't already Obama's life story, in short, much more readable, at the cost of a very few extra characters, IMHO.

But it it got reverted seven minutes later with no attempt at discussion on the Talk page, for allegedly not being an improvement. But after looking again at the edit, I am convinced that my edit was an improvement. Here's a link to the revision history page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=history

I think the reverter attaches to much value to the number of characters. Adding a comma does not mean it takes longer to read the sentence. It is how long it takes the reader to read the sentence that counts, not how many characters are in the sentence, as I see it. The reversion, IMHO, is a case of the extreme compression of text, that calls to mind the style of a newspaper headline, where the number of characters really is an issue, or, to use a less extreme example, the style of a newspaper column where the number of characters or "inches" of text is limited. " Polar Apposite (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with ValarianB's revert. This plays into what I was speaking with you about on your talk page, Polar Apposite. Per WP:TERSE, sentences should be reduced to the essentials, and wordiness does not improve Wikipedia articles. The words you added are a typical example of prose that is commonly scrapped by experienced copyeditors. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you please show, or link to, one or more examples, preferably ones that are lengthy, of what you are referring to when you say, "prose that is commonly scrapped by experienced copyeditors", because I do not see how what I wrote would be likely to be edited by the typical experienced copyeditor. In fact, the original text was what I would expect such a copyeditor to edit, which is why I edited it. Otherwise, I would have continued reading because I only try to improve the English when it seems to me that I am incontrovertibly an improvement.
Recently, I have made at least one seriously flawed edit that you linked to on my talk page, and at least one reversion of one edit of mine, that you also linked to on my talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Polar_Apposite was a good one, that I would applaud. Like everyone, I am fallible, and I willing to acknowledge that, and I glad to be seen as one who can admit he is wrong when he is (people notice that sort of thing, and it's conspicuous absence, I think).
But I sincerely think that my Obama edit was a good one, on the whole. It might not be perfect, but reversion is too extreme a measure. Someone [edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asparagusus] at the Tearoom, a day or two ago, suggested breaking the sentence into parts, which hadn't occurred to me, and I think is worth considering. Polar Apposite (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The original text is fine. Some people might prefer changing "Obama previously served" to "Obama had previously served" (and similar) but others are very happy with the original. Neither is right or wrong. The difference is style and articles here are often written in the brief style used in the original text. It is not possible to discuss every disagreement until everyone is satisfied and standard procedure is to assume that plenty of people have seen the changes and are happy with how things are now (we assume that because no one else has supported the change). Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
How many is "plenty"?
Maybe no one has taken the time to reflect properly on the change.
See my reply to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kerdooskis below for a detailed explanation of everything that is wrong with the English in the original text. Polar Apposite (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be hinting that there might be no right or wrong in writing, and that it is all a matter of taste. In fact, it is possible to carry out psychology experiments to measure how long it takes people to read text, and measure, with multiple choice questions how much has been retained, and how much has been properly understood, and conversely how much misunderstanding there has been. So it isn't entirely subjective.
I guess which version, mine or the original, is more beautiful would be a matter of taste, but I don't think many would say the original is the winner of that contest.
The original has only thing going for it, and that is its low word count and low character count, which are plusses in situations where space is constrained. I don't think this applies to Wikipedia, not even to the lede of an article. The size of the lede is constrained by the time and effort needed to read it, not by the character or word count. Polar Apposite (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I prefer the original text, as clear and concise. The longer version gives the impression that its author was being paid by the word. Maproom (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Short, yes. Clear, no. Concise, maybe, depending on what you mean by the word. If it simply very short, regardless of whether it is good English, then maybe the original was "concise". But, as I understand it, "concise' means short and clear and good English. The original text is bad English, and therefore, although short, is not truly concise.
Please read my response to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kerdooskis below. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Polar Apposite (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Trying to improve readability, especially for nonnative English speakers, is a good idea. But the reverted edit really didn't improve the copy in that sense. More like the opposite. Breaking copy into shorter sentences can sometimes be a good solution if a string of ideas seems hard to follow. Kerdooskis (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
That was the idea of @asparagusus and it could a solution. Nevertheless, I'd like to show how the sentence could be improved without breaking it up.
The string of ideas is very long in the sentence:
"Obama previously served as a U.S. senator representing Illinois from 2005 to 2008 and as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004, and worked as a civil rights lawyer and university lecturer."
The way it goes backwards in time, and then forwards, and then backwards again, and then forwards again, and then backwards yet again, like some resumes, usually without even a comma or a helpful pointer like "previously", makes it even harder to follow.
And the one time that there is such a pointer, it is placed where it is not really needed, because disorientation is unlikely to have set in right at the beginning of the sentence. Cutting the word "previous" gives "Obama served as a U.S. senator representing Illinois from 2005 to 2008 [...]" which is, up to the ellipsis, perfectly clear. The earlier part of the lede had made clear that Obama was president from 2009 to 2017, just two sentences back, so it's clear to the reader that what he did between 2005 and 2008 must have been before that, i.e. previously. So I'd suggest cutting that word.
There's no Oxford comma after "2008", and I think there should be. There *is* one after "2004", and that is correct English, IMHO. It is wrong that there is no comma after "2008", because an Oxford comma is called for, and, also, its absence creates an inconsistency in the punctuation not only within the article (bad enough) but within the one sentence. There is no difference in the grammatical features of the location, because being a U.S. senator is a different job from being a state senator (although they are confusingly similar sounding, and this confusion is made worse by the fact that the word "Illinois" is also in each job title) and Obama worked at these jobs at different times, so they really are different jobs and there is no grammatical justification to leave out the Oxford comma (unlike in the phrase "painter and decorator"). In fact, all the more reason to carefully separate them with an Oxford comma. Furthermore, this inconsistency hurts readability. So, IMHO, an Oxford comma should be added after "2008".
I think there should be an Oxford comma after "lawyer". All the same arguments apply to this as to positions in the sentence that I've analyzed above, and with even greater force. It sounds like it might mean that Obama was a civil rights lawyer and a civil rights university lecturer, or perhaps that "civil rights lawyer and university lecturer" were in this case some kind of dual role, like the aforementioned "painter and decorator", or at least that these two jobs were somehow connected, two sides of a coin, in some way. This impression is strengthened in the reader's mind by another type of inconsistency, this time in absence of the phrase, "as a", before "university lecturer". Each and every job in the sentence is prefaced with "as a", which is standard, and correct, and clear, except the last. There is thus a strong impression in the readers mind that this is significant. I think very few readers can be expected to know a lot about what being a civil rights lawyer entails, nor what being university lecturer entails, and whether it's normal to be both. The reader is likely be unclear about whether this is intended to suggest that Obama did both jobs at the same time, much like a painter and decorator is both a painter and decorator at the same time. Was he perhaps a full time civil rights lawyer and a part time university lecturer? Vice versa? To summarize, the absence of both the Oxford comma, *and* the phrase, "as a" are both inconsistencies that each alone would cause some confusion in the reader's mind, but put together, the two absences combine to send a powerful wrong suggestion to the reader, and that hurts readability, and looks like bad English, which, of course, it is. Polar Apposite (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Re How many is "plenty"?, visiting the article and clicking 'Page information' shows: Number of page watchers = 4,132 and Number of page watchers who visited recent edits = 81. A successful editor needs to learn that people are different and will have different opinions. There is no point arguing about every detail and people won't bother. Per the comments above and WP:SILENCE, we assume that the current article has consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the statistics. Very interesting. 4132 is a lot. Does visiting an edit mean loading the diff page?Can anyone tell me what "recent" means, and how exactly this is calculated?
Wow. What a link. Thanks for that. You are a mine of information.
But doesn't your link imply that there isn't consensus? After all 1. there was a revert, and 2. I am expressing disagreement here on the ta lk page That would seem to be two reasons that are each sufficient to prove that there is not consensus.
Here's a quote from your link:
"Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting, editing, or stating disagreement on a relevant talk page)." Polar Apposite (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Silence aside, there's clear consensus per the above discussion that this proposed edit wasn't an improvement. I agree with the others that the edit added words to no benefit. Changing to a 3-point list with Oxford comma would be better and I support that change, which I will propose now. VQuakr (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
ValarianB, thank you: good edit. Polar Apposite, can we move on? Drmies (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
No problem. Polar Apposite (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

Under "Presidential Campaigns - 2008, in the sentence, "On June 2, 2008, Obama had received enough votes to clinch his election.", I would suggest replacing "election" with "nomination", since this was during the primary process and not the general election. PlasticJones (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Obamacare"

It feels odd that this main page on Obama devotes 6 paragraphs to health care reform and the ACA but does not mention the term "Obamacare".

By contrast, the Affordable_Care_Act (ACA) article summary starts with "The Affordable Care Act (ACA), formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and colloquially known as Obamacare, is a landmark U.S. federal statute "; a search for 'Obamacare' redirects to that page. Aliza250 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not super important, since that isn't an official name for it. It was mentioned later in this article in the "legacy" section. However, I do think that it is a widely enough term to be mentioned earlier, so I've put it where we first use "(ACA)" in the section on healthcare reform --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The origin of the term "Obamacare" was Tea Partiers and Republicans who were trying to tank the legislation. I'm surprised we don't mention this in this bio. Is it on a subpage? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The origins of the term are mentioned in the Affordable Care Act article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
As a non-American not totally familiar with American political slang but interested in what happens there, I am delighted to see that addition to the article. I didn't know they were the same thing. Remember we are creating a global encyclopedia here, not just one for an American audience. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

African American

Not useful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Obama was biracial (white and black), not African American. He was born in Hawaii. How can he be African? 2601:584:101:B0D0:81F:6831:7064:3DD5 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ#Q2. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, really? Being born in Hawaii means he isn't African American? If you have to be born in Africa to be African American, that would mean virtually all African Americans... aren't African Americans. Also, most Italian Americans, Irish Americans, etc. aren't that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
My advice: WP:DFTT. Tvoz/talk 16:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Generally, my inclination with ridiculous talk page comments like this is to remove them (WP:DENY), but @A. Randomdude0000 had already responded to it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Barack Obama." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Barack Obama. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Barack Obama. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the dot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"0bama" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 0bama has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § 0bama until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Early life and career of Barack Obama

Hi,

What's the point of Early life and career of Barack Obama when Barack Obama article, goes into such a low-level detail as the "strong likelihood" of whom Obama's mother might be related to? This has zero bearing on Obama himself and should be left in the aforementioned Main Article. In general the entire Early life and career section should be summarized, instead of being a 16 thousand characters of text, all of which overlaps with the Early life and career of Barack Obama. SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

Please add Category:American agnostics. 98.47.36.255 (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_83&oldid=1220239517"