Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 75

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77→Archive 80

Obamas Religion

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

Arttcles state that President Obamas religion is not know by 44 precent of Americans and another 8 say he doesnt have any. But only 4 precent say he's Catholic. So is it safe to put nothing, or at least Atheist.

http://www.livescience.com/21141-americans-muddled-obama-religion.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIARay (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't be idiotic. From your source: "Knowledge of Obama's religion is stronger among Democrats, 52 percent of whom correctly said he is a Christian" --NeilN talk to me 16:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
A little harsh, perhaps. :) How about this: All reliable sources that address Obama's religion follow the universal standard in modern society, which is to let the man speak for himself. Obama claims to be a Christian (as sourced in the current article). Therefore while admitting that the label "Christian" admits of considerable latitude, we must reject religiously motivated arguments that e.g. "Obama was born to a Muslim father and thus must always be a Muslim" or "doesn't follow some specific sect of Christianity and thus must be labeled atheist" or "has taken a look at his belly button in the past and is therefore a Zen Buddhist". Wikipedia is on firm ground here in terms of mainstream use of the word "Christian" and ascription of religious affiliation. A national poll in particular is not credible enough to change this mainstream convention. Wookian (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but given AIARay's first edit was this, your well-reasoned points may be too subtle. --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
All that poll shows is ignorance of people regarding Obama's religion not any dispute of what Obama's religion is. To be blunt a large portion of the American public not knowing Obama's religion does not turn Obama into a Atheist.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If you go to the top of this page you can see a FAQ section to uncollapse. Question 1, entitled "Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?", gives a brief explanation and refers to two articles that discuss the subject in more depth, Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. The fact that many people consider(ed) him Muslim even though he is not is itself a notable cultural phenomenon, hence the article on the subject. Obama's quitting his old church is described in the Jeremiah Wright controversy, but speculation about what it means to be nondemoninational or not a member of one specific church or another is really just talk here (see WP:FORUM and WP:OR), it does not seem to be a notable issue that interests the sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's stop beating about the bush here. This is NOT a religious issue, nor really one of simple ignorance. It's deliberate misinformation propagated by Obama's political opponents, and readily absorbed by unthinking, often bigoted supporters of the parties represented by those political opponents. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
NeilN phrases his apt observation above on this edit with commendable fastidiousness. Time to collapse this section? -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


Closing the issue is bad and could be misinterpreted by some as censorship. However, it wrong and bias to try to say he is atheist. He is a Christian. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but he is not one. His real religion may be Politics, but that sort of thing can't go in the article because that is commentary. Evergreenme (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Colorado mass shooting

Irrelevant to Obama's life or presidency; this discussion will not lead to improvements in the article; WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please add: "Under Obama administration in 2012, the number of casualties (12 deaths and 58 injuries) makes the Colorado movie theater shooting the largest mass shooting in U.S. history." reference: http://gma.yahoo.com/colorado-batman-movie-shooting-suspect-phd-student-085940589--abc-news-topstories.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.185.99 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That wording gives the impression that there is a causal link between President Obama and the shooting. Lots of things happen during a Presidential administration that have nothing to do with the President. SMP0328. (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you say that Obama could do nothing as a President? Then read: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Barack-Obama-Gun-Control.htm . From this: "Given Obama’s record as an Illinois state senator, where he stated his support for an all-out ban on handguns, among other gun control stances, pro-gun advocates were concerned that gun rights might suffer under an Obama presidential administration." ... "After Obama’s election, gun sales reached a record pace as gun owners snatched up guns, particularly those that had been branded assault weapons under the defunct 994 Assault Weapons ban, out of an apparent fear that Obama would crack down on gun ownership." It would be good to open in the main article a new section 4.2.4 Gun rights and their consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.185.99 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be added at this time since it does not have much to do with the President himself or any legislation passed or even proposed. If things change and this significantly affects Obama (this becomes a cornerstone of a major gun control push he spearheads or Mitt Romney wins the election by using this event to portray Obama as weak on crime etc) then it could very well warrant an addition but not at this time. Also While it is true that Obama has pushed for gun control in the past I have not seen any reliable sources connecting that to the shooting in question so it should not be mentioned unless the link can be made.--70.49.83.93 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
no obvious obama-->this crime connection. plus: pretty sure the second Virginia Tech massacre killed more. (ah yes just looked it up: tech's deaths = 33! cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No doubt killed more, but read again, we talked about number of casualties and this is for Virgina: 33+23=56 < Aurora: 12+58=70. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.160.194 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
casualties versus fatalities is a seldom-used and confusing measure. and, again, no connection between this crime and who happened to be in the white house. not like the shooter went around shouting 'vote obama' or 'go romney' or had and political motive that anyone has yet found. there was no national emergency needing federal-level response justifying inclusion of the event in the sitting president's article --as, say, many would say was needed during W's term when hurricane katrina struck. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I would say even if he was an Obama supporter it would not be enough to include here since that is Obama's personal biography and if the only connection to Obama is that he planned to vote for him that is not relevant enough for a biography on Obama. Something more significant would need to happen first (ie this event allows the republicans to pain Obama as a radical via guilt by association and causes him to lose the election etc) before an addition is considered. I would also oppose an inclusion of Romney's page if the shooter was one of his supporters for the same reason.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

New picture of Obama

My proposal is a BW picture of the black Obama: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/7592316414/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.68.58.196 (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"POV pushing"

comments about editor behavior, discussion appears to have concluded

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.

A user has seen fit to accuse me of POV pushing over a rather mild recent edit [1]. Furthermore, that user chose to revert the entire edit over an issue with one portion of it. Such actions and accusations do not promote a civil discussion. As the user refused to self revert in response to a request on his talk page, I am repeating the request here.William Jockusch (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No. The article will not reflect the Republican talking point that "Obamacare" is a tax. This has already been discussed, language worked out, consensus established and edit made. Now you come in (as you have many times before) and try to change it to match the Republican POV. What else would you call it, if not POV pushing? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's stick to the question of article content please. Was there a prior discussion on that and can you point to it? Is it worth discussing again now? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No, there was not a prior discussion of the content that I am aware of. [I did take a break from this article, and it sounds like there was one while I was away]. The quick accusation simply rankles. The edit changed two things -- one intentional; one not, but I actually believe the second one was correct as well. First of all, I added the commerce clause portion of the Court's decision to the article. The is justified as it was widely mentioned in press coverage of the decision. It is additionally significant as it is the Court has not found any limitations on the Commerce power in a long time. I must say I am surprised that there is any dispute about the significance of this. The second change, which I didn't even intend to make at the time, but appears 100% correct in retrospect, was that I removed the false claim that the Court found that "any penalty could be imposed". As for the wording between "as a tax" [mine] or "under . . . taxing authority" [previous], I couldn't care less; both are 100% accurate.
I will add that I would like to stick to content, but as evidenced above, I make a single change which removes factually false information and adds factually true information, and I am accused of "pushing"; the accusation has now been made a total of three times! I am sure that the accuser believes in good faith that the accusation is true. However, such accusations, even though the accuser is clearly sincere in the belief that they are true, do not promote rational discussion and therefore must be confronted. The human thing to do at this point would be to admit error, offer an apology, and promise to have more caution about making such accusations in the future.William Jockusch (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Your version is not "100% accurate". Your version features the often-repeated Republican talking point that "Obamacare" is a tax. There is a big difference between a tax, and assessing a penalty under the taxing authority. If you are self employed and fail to file your quarterly returns, you are assessed a penalty under the taxing authority; however, nobody calls that a tax. The penalty assessed by the taxing authority for failure to get health insurance is identical in function. Not a tax (see Forbes for explanation). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Really, this is most disappointing. Regardless of whether or not we agree with another person's politics, it is polite to apologize when one makes an accusation that turns out to be false. Instead, it appears that a user is intent on finding a different fault. Such actions try one's assumption of good faith.William Jockusch (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The accusation is not false. You've frequently found yourself on the receiving end of such accusations from many different editors, so what does that tell you? We're getting tired of it. Now as my previous comment notes, you are wrong about this tax thing. If you propose text on this talk page and seek consensus instead of just sticking it in to the article, you will not find yourself in this position. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

War in Afghanistan

This needs updated; did troop withdrawals begin on time in May 2011, or not? Having the statement sitting there in July 2012 looks poor. --John (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe instead of posting this comment saying the info/section looks poor. Why not you take the time to look it up and add/fix the information. Just posting this comment here is in poor taste and shows a certain laziness. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it would be helpful to come up with some suggestions, Mister IP-editor. But there's nothing wrong with bringing up a matter and asking the community to participate. John is 100% right that this section is stale, so can we update it? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The war in Afghanistan has two or three major components. That Obama ordered a surge and now is trying to withdraw. Whether he is negotiating with the Taliban is far less important unless the section is long and detailed. Evergreenme (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Dog-gate is important to include

just "no". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

This is relevant to his bio (Obama and Romney). I added it with 4 references from top notch news sources, including a mention that it is important. To be fair, I also added a similar comment about a similar dog issue to the other candidate's bio.

It is very easy for political supporters to be upset and want it censored. However, it is clearly a big development in the campaign and, therefore, the bio.

Background: Obama ate dog meat and admitted it in his own book. Romney put his dog on a specially made carrier, not inside the car. Evergreenme (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In both cases it's irrelevant political mud dredged up by political opponents. Please don't clutter up this great global encyclopaedia with political trivia which has only surfaced because of an American election campaign. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Not appropriate for either article. You are a new account, make suggestions here first. Arkon (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll make suggestions first. It is appropriate because it is a fact (referenced by Obama), it is noted by others (many references available, four noted here), and it is important to Obama, much more important that some of the facts about his administration, which is not always about the man. I admit it is not as important as listing his birthdate or that he is president, but is more important than his August 2006 visit to Kenya to see his hometown (section: Chicago Community Organizer) or that Hillary Clinton endorsed Obama (this is standard practice and the date she did it makes no difference).
Try to make a convincing argument that these two facts are MORE important that an intersting fact about Obama's lifestyle and dietary habits in Indonesia. The dog meat issue was covered far more than his 2006 visit to Kenya or Clinton's endorsement. Evergreenme (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Trying to close a discussion just shows bias as Seb just did.

The bottom line is that this dog fact is NOT a big part of Obama's life. If there is a short article, I agree that it should NOT be in the article. However, as the article becomes long and detailed, then facts of this sort become more important.

One way to objectively decide is not to say "if I am for Obama, I want only positive things and if I am against Obama, I want only negative things." Rather, it is to say "what is the most important things of his life?" If there are other trivial facts, then consider whether the dog fact is equal or more important. If equal or more important, then it should either be included or other less important facts deleted from the article.

My opinion is that this is a slightly relevant issue if his book is mentioned and details of the book mentioned (after the fact that his father was Kenyan). It is certainly MORE important than a mention of a 2006 trip to his father's home town, a very trivial fact that is included in the article. Evergreenme (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Summary needs footnotes

As found on Mitt Romney's page, this page requires footnotes in the summary in order to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard. Please include these footnotes even if present elsewhere in the article, in order to allow verifiability without the need to search through the article. Viridium (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, this is unnecessary. Tag removed. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge

A Twitter account is giving undue weight for a whole article and as this Twitter business is not even mentioned at all in the Barack Obama article it should be summarized and merged.

I've removed the merge tag. It's not a viable proposal, and leaving that tag there unnecessarily exposes the many non-editor readers of the article with an obscure bit of Wikipedia process. Any regular editor here will see it on their watch list. Meanwhile, there's an RfC and a DRV discussion about that article, including proposals to merge it into various Obama-related topics. They have to run their course before it's even an issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is pronunciation of Barack Obama needed?

I do not feel it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess it's there because it's not an English-Language name, huh. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course it is needed. I've heard both names being mispronounced quite often. For a long time, my countrymen said BUR-ACK OH-BAMMA until they'd been educated by Wikipeda. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Whats wrong with saying BUR-ACK OH-BAMMA? YOu mean the second to last a is long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
People in the UK were saying Barack so it sounded like "attack", and Obama so it sounded like the end of "Alabama". That obviously isn't correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

List of what has been discussed

Someone mentioned that the figure has already been extensively discussed. Can you generate a list of other things that have been extensively discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ALso update the faq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What, specifically, about the FAQ needs to be updated?--JayJasper (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The FAQ needs to be updated to reflect the topics extensively discussed like the figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The figure? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable and ridiculous deletion

I've written only "Should be include his opinions" and the answer was: "Not a forum" from the user "The Magnificent Clean-keeper". This is raising many red flags for me. You and other such user should stop their unnacceptable behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.58.206 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You were suggesting that a YouTube article about a six year old telling people not to vote for Obama might be a good idea. It was a complete waste of time since there was no chance of that ever being included for various reasons so I don't see anything as unacceptable about the removal.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Height stats

closing thread about trivia, complete with ridiculous speculation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How tall is Barack Obama? There are no height stats in the infobox. 24.146.222.131 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also no reference in the Infobox to his weight. Nor should there be. Both are trivial. With that said, just to be clear, thank you for your suggestion. SMP0328. (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Au contraire, it's very important to be tall for a president. Women dislike the shorter men. 24.146.222.131 (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and being attractive to women is the most important qualification for the presidency. Unless the candidate is a woman, of course, or is that not possible in your worldview? Tvoz/talk 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Statistically, tall men are more likely to get promoted to higher level management positions and earn more over their lifetime. In a campaign for president, everything matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.193.224 (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Try Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.145.197 (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • During the 2008 campaign a spokesperson said he was about 6 feet tall, so somewhere between 5'11¾" and 6'¾" I assume, though I think he has been wearing lifts since the election because he now looks closer to 6'2" IMO. Michelle Obama is 5'11" and I believe Romney is 6'2", so we will see who is taller when they meet for debate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Several edit requests and corrections

Professional: lawyer

A better name here is attorney. See also wikipedia what describe for attorney "Attorney at law or attorney-at-law, usually abbreviated in everyday speech to attorney, is the official name for a lawyer in certain jurisdictions, including, Japan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and the United States." and also what currently we write in main article: "He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago". You are using nowhere else in the article the lawyer word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.187.160 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's correct. The way it was explained to me, anyone with a law degree or the equivalent is a lawyer. Someone who engages in the profession of getting paid to do law work for others is an attorney. Many politicians are lawyers. Most are not, currently, practicing attorneys (but Obama was for a number of years). - Wikidemon (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Members of the bar are lawyers. Attorney is a more generic term for people that represent someone. Hence, attorney at law, versus power of attorney, etc. "Lawyer" would be correct and is the convention. Shadowjams (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

New Party

Edit request on 30 July 2012

i would like to edit this page for a truthful reason, obama is a former new party member, needs to be put in page, thank you

Mycamaguay (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but right-wing smear campaigns aren't welcome on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Or to put it more gently, you can find some more background about this at New Party and its associated talk page, and Stanley Kurtz, the writer who has been talking about this. The question has been discussed here and on other pages relating to Obama, and the consensus among editors is that there is not enough sourcing to establish that the claim is significant, or particularly relevant to the President's biography, much less that it is actually true. Indeed, the claim's currency is almost entirely among sources devoted to disparaging the President. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
To put it even more gently to our asker, the multiple original sources documenting Obama's NP involvement do reasonably pass the tests of truth and verifiability; however, various editors around here have dug in their heels and refused to permit inclusion, explaining for the most part that they don't like the messenger -- because Kurtz, while a Harvard trained Ph.D., has committed the sin of being a conservative, and those who have given this airtime in major newspapers are mostly conservative, that therefore the NP minutes must have been forged or something, even though nobody out there has made that claim... or something like that. It gets rather vague when you get down to the details of their objections. Wookian (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
At least my reply had the virtues of brevity and accuracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
And not encouraging new editors to approach a consensus process with assumptions of bad faith. - 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
An example of an assumption of bad faith would be to immediately write off credible, alleged factual information unfavorable to Obama as a "right wing smear campaign". Wookian (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
And if it was credible, alleged factual information you would be right. But it isn't, so you aren't. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, who do you think forged the meeting minutes, membership roster, and event announcements? I presume you have performed original research, since I haven't read anything on the internet about this. Also, perhaps you should share your discoveries of the forgery with the Washington Post and various other major newspapers that have given airtime to Kurtz's discovery. Those publications would certainly be dismayed to have given airtime to a forgery. So pray share your discoveries with others. Oh, wait, I forgot. You are opposing this because Kurtz is conservative, not because there is any credible reason to doubt his well documented original sources. So nevermind. Wookian (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This is getting a little long and winding. As a content proposition, adding this material does not have much support, among other reasons because it's thinly sourced. But still, don't WP:BITE any newbies either, or use the page as a platform for accusations against those who do. Respect on all sides! - Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Misspelling

The first line says that "barack and obama redirect here" but in the blue barack link the name is misspelled. someone fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.185.71 (talk • contribs)

The "Barak" spelling is intentional. It is not a misspelling. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please add: "Obama is the 11th great-grandson of the first documented African slave in the U.S.." ref: http://edition.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/us/2012/07/30/tsr-sylvester-obama-ancestry.cnn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.174.16 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Trivia, not really worth mentioning here. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, interesting to know, but if you do enough genealogy you can find dozens of significant or famous people related to anyone and we'd fill up the whole article with this kind of thing. You know he's George W Bush's 11th cousin and Dick Cheney's 8th cousin, right?[2] - Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
And if you go back fourteen (?) generations you've probably got about 5,000 grandparents. It's not unlikely everyone who has American lineage dating back to the 16th century has a black ancestor, and probably a Native American ancestor too. Sceptre (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
And if you go back even further, you'd find he's related to Adam and Eve. Spoooookieeee--JOJ Hutton 00:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I request that the above comments is removed per DFTT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.80 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not reject this out of hand as trivia. We make the declarative statement "Obama is also not a descendant of American slaves" in "Cultural and political image" and we mention his mother's genealogy in the end of the first paragraph of "Personal life". We might wait and see if this research generates any significant notice, but we may need to modify what we say here, at least in a note. A properly worded mention could also be made in Family of Barack Obama "Distant relations" section and possibly in Public image of Barack Obama. This fact, if it is a fact, clearly had no impact on his upbringing, but we don't know what, if any, impact the information will have now that it is known. Tvoz/talk 15:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of improving Israel section

So, as a test, here is my suggestion. Totally revamp the Israel foreign policy section. The current version looks like a cheerleading section, trying to make the reader think he should vote for Obama because Obama is for Israel. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Obama's ad agency. The current section covers the following: 1. increased military cooperation with Israel, (even though the reference used actually starts out saying relations with Israel is choppy) 2. In 2011, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, with the United States being the only nation to do so.[230] 3.Obama supports the two-state solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict based on the 1967 borders with land swaps.[231

If we try to summary 4-5 facts in a revised section, it may be:

1. Obama's relation with Israel is choppy. The relationship with Netanyahu is poor.
1a. Obama even told Sarkozy of France that he has to deal with him everyday. (quote was even worse)
2. Obama was for a 2 state solution but Palestineans were outraged when he did nothing to stop settlements (UN security council resolution)
3. Obama was opposed to Israeli talk of war with Iran.
4. (optional) there is steadily increasing military cooperation. OTOH, it's not that much greater so it may be biased to tout it too much if the section is short.
5. (possible) Obama has never visited Israel as President. CNN mentioned this.
6. (possible) Obama refused to pardon Pollard, the Israeli spy, despite pleas from the Israeli government.

#1 is the most important point. Evergreenme (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You need sources for these claims, most of which are gross distortions. Comment - it saddens me that presidential nominees have to suck up to a belligerent, non-compromising nation with dubious land claims just to win a few votes. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :Thanks for getting the ball rolling. Here are some thoughts: #1 - Agreed, there has been some friction, which we should mention as an introduction to some of the details. I'm not familiar enough with the situation and would have to see sourcing to see just how choppy things are, whether Netanyahu is particularly alienated, and whether that's mutual. I doubt the quote about Sarkozy is itself so significant or informative that it actually adds much to the observation. We should also put this in perspective that US is Israel's closest ally and Israel is the closest ally to the US in the region. I think #2 is already in the article, both parts in separate places without a "but". Connectors like "despite", "but", and "however" can hide sneaky introductions of opinion. #3 is very important, the US position (and likely behind-the-scenes work) on Israel and Iran is significant, particularly if there is a strike, war, backdown by Iran, actual development of nukes by Iran, etc., that arises. There was a very informative long article about this earlier in the year, predicting a likelihood of imminent war before the US election - probably not at this point, but some details in the article are probably relevant. #4 is already in the article, but I think it has too much prominence (half of the entire section) - I've boldly cut it down a bit. #5 and #6 not so much, every President has places he hasn't visited. We could fill 100 articles with things Obama has _not_ done. Nobody has pardoned Pollard, this has been a sore point through several administrations. More broadly, Israel and other allies occasionally do conduct espionage in the US and the US continues to go after spies from allied countries. I thought I just read about a new case. Very interesting stuff, but probably not at the level of being biographically relevant to Obama - more apt in a specialized article about foreign relations. There may be a few other things to add, though I'm not sure. Any other US involvement in Israel / Palestine relations, changing relationship with Egypt following the Arab Spring, Syria and Lebanon? Perhaps we should retitle and broaden the section to read "Israel and the Middle East" (but not so wide as to overlap with the sections about Afghan, Libya, and Iraq). Just a side note, it's not helpful to talk about campaign promotion, bias, or disputes among editors, because when people focus on that it's harder for them to get their head around to the content. Thanks again, and cheers. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC) (after edit conflict, respond to SCJessey) Of course everything would need to be backed up by sources. I don't think we have to editorialize about why there is a land conflict with Palestine or who is at fault or intransigent. I seriously thought your comment was blaming Palestine, no joke! You could say the same of both sides probably. The fact is there is a conflict, and the US has taken a role. Vetoing the Security Council resolution, for good or ill, is a major step that surely reflects the will of the Administration. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with #1. There was a "dinner snub" story back in 2010, though parts of it were disputed, and I'm not sure what can be clearly established as being true. [3][4] Certainly this suggests a choppy relationship, to say the least. Plenty of people are convinced that O. and N. hate each other, [5] [6], though the two of them deny it [7]. And it is indisputable that there was plenty of anger in Israel at Obama's treatment of Mubarak [8][9] #6 is not particularly telling, for the reasons Demon mentioned. #5 I am ambivalent on whether it is significant or not. If prior presidents visited frequently, it is significant; if not, not so much. About #3 -- this appears to be significant [10]. William Jockusch (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
None of which has really much to do with this article, and is perhaps better suited for one of the presidency or foreign policy sub-articles. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
We're talking about improving the Israel section, not adding a new section. If US-Israel relations isn't pertinent to the Obama article we would remove the whole section, not reject the idea of improving it, right? But I'd argue that Israel is one of the most important foreign relations issues, foreign policy is one of the 3 or 4 job duties of a President and his administration, and the Presidency is the most important fact of Obama's life, so you could make a pretty good case that his relationship with Israel is a biographically significant issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Obama and religion

I've NPOV-ed this segment, and it needs watching over. There was a link to 'black liberation theology' a page that contains false, thinly disguised America-hatred overtones, suggesting Islamists are practitioners. On Mr. Obama's page, this is an inaccurate and incendiary link.

In addition, dog-eating is a non-topic, as cultures around the world dine on cats, dogs, horses, snakes, possums, armadillos, goats, bunny rabbits, and guinea pigs. An Introduction to Anthropology course is recommended for anyone who thinks dog-eating rises to the level of a topic that is appropriate. KSRolph (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fix the 'black liberation theology' page if it has inaccurate information. That's not a reason to remove it from this article, when it is factually correct. Arkon (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to ask, why is it biographically necessary to link to the black liberation theology article? Do we routinely link to the theology of the churches attended by other individuals in BLPs? I endorse KSRolph's edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd personally liken it to any specific church that a public person has gone to with, say, catholic churches. JFK etc. And honestly, is a church name sufficient in any way by itself in a biography? The point is information, which the theology then provides. Arkon (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
In that case, "Protestant" is the correct explanation, not "black liberation theology". My nose is catching the faint whiff of racism about this. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
On first review I think it's relevant. Even if that article isn't a great one, it does give some additional background that's relevant to the church and informative to the reader. The article clearly says that the movement exists both in Christian and Islamic groups. Granting that there's a tinge of racism in some people's reaction to certain facts about Obama, that shouldn't affect us either way in covering those facts. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, "Protestant" doesn't begin to give the full picture. As someone who was raised in a 'Southern Baptist' church, I appreciate the differentials. Arkon (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
One big question, though, is whether the "black liberation" descriptor is a salient and defining characteristic of the church. Reading the article about the church, it appears no. The main things in the lede are that it's an African-American Church, that it's in Chicago's South Side, that it's part of the United Church of Christ, and that it's early history involved the Civil Rights Movement. So perhaps labeling it a BLC may be something of a WP:COATRACK. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
"Christianity" is too broad. The Infobox should identify the branch of Christianity of which Obama is a follower/member. SMP0328. (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice. But he has deaffiliated himself from the UCC because of the Wright issue, and the best sources we have (I admit I haven't looked for updated ones in quite a while) say he primarily attends a non-denominational chapel – currently serve by, IIRC, a Baptist minister – so it's difficult to be more specific. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It is, really, a quick look through shows that the pastor himself is responsible for much if not all of the labeling. The discussion still belongs on that page though. Arkon (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is racism in a linked, stated concept coupling Mr. Obama to Black Liberation Theology, it fuels misinformation about Mr. Obama's beliefs and affiliations in a nation with some strongly anti-Islamic communities; the rules in Wikipedia are to stick to the facts. This means avoiding conjecture and - without complete or factual information - generating pseudo-data for use in 'connecting dots' for an audience; to do so is misleading and dangerous. Rather than spend my time correcting the Black Liberation Theology page, I'd like to survey other American presidents and see what information about their religion is stated and quoted. Let's be systematic in these matters. We are duty bound to respect one another on this forum and to respect living persons. NPOV objectivity is the goal here, use of language is powerful, and we are not journalists, but rather encyclopediaists. We should avoid the self-gratifying impulse to add meaningful little tweaks that lead an audience to read into the information something that is not supported by evidence. Please back me up wise colleagues, we should say less, not more on this particular complex issue. Arkon, too, thank you for your suggestions, come on over to this side of the discussion, please. KSRolph (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Presidents and right-hand column on Religion: Having had a look at Mr. Bush Jr. - all that is mentioned is: Episcopal until 1977 and thereafter, Methodist. Mr. Clinton it only says: Baptist. They have no text section dedicated to their religiosity. As for Mr. Obama and 'Christianity,' I too find it too broad, and if Baptist seems too specific, then Protestant Christian is one suggestion, or follow the lead of Mr. Bush Jr. and state 'Church of Christ' until 2008, and Baptist thereafter. Mr. Obama is a Protestant. KSRolph (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's compare. Do you know who "Mr. Bush Jr."'s pastor is? Has he had coverage in many major reliable sources, consistently? Is he referenced when talking about "Episcopalians"? I trust that I don't need to go further. Arkon (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What I mean by being systematic, is not one, not two, but a look at several presidents, comparatively. KSRolph (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't go overboard trying to convince the reader than Obama is not a Muslim.

The last section about religion is poorly written. It is so lengthy, almost trying to prove to the reader that Obama is a Christian. It even makes no mention that he is accused of being a Muslim.

Anyone whose read the news knows that Obama has been accused of being a Muslim. To ignore it is ignoring the elephant in the room.

I've fixed the section. I've trimmed it, taking out long quotes trying to prove that he is a Christian. Instead, it simply states that he says he is. Then I added a Washington Post reference that says that people have accused him of being a Muslim (but I don't make those wild claims). Then the 2nd paragraph is left as it is.

If you go overboard and shout "Obama is Christian", you make the readers think "Wikipedia must be trying to hide the truth". Part of his bio is that people accuse him of being a Muslim. George Tupou VII (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

saying "Muslim" is not an "accusation". This section is a non-starter. Try again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to comment on a closed discussion, but I agree with the original poster's observation, if not their proposed edit to the main page. Whether you call it an accusation, smear, conspiracy theory, or whatever is a semantic issue. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but the claim that Obama is a Muslim is intended as something negative by those who make it. If someone were unaware of the fringe claims that Obama is Muslim, it simply reads to be somewhat redundant. However, viewed in light of those claims, it could easily strike a reader (and it strikes me) as defensive. There are similar overkill issues occasionally in the articles on the religion and citizenship conspiracy theories. I think the section could be improved without taking out any of its informational content by simply reducing the number of times it says Obama is Christian by one or two. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Do NOT be sorry to comment on a closed discussion. Closing the discussion was a very heavy handed thing to do just because Seb does not like the suggestion. That is what they do in North Korea, the only exception being that they add "to sing praises to Dear Leader Kim Johg-Il we close this discussion and execute you". Other than that they do the same thing, close the discussion.
My suggestion stands. Just quote the Washington Post that says that there's been

Since declaring his candidacy for president in February, Obama, a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama's stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.
Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim

This could be condensed to a few words giving context...such as "For several years, assertions have been made that Obama is a Muslim." then add the part about he's a Christian. Without it, it looks like Wikipedia is trying to brainwash the reader or be his campaign manager. Look at other President's Wikipedia article....none have such long sections trying to prove they are a Christian.

George Tupou VII (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

but the claim that Obama is a Muslim is intended as something negative by those who make it. is paranoia and a disservice to our readers. No comment on the rest. Arkon (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Huh? I don't get that drift. Perhaps it's motivated by paranoia, plus some fear, ignorance and xenophobia. Our readers are on the main page, not here. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

52

Whoever updates the ages of famous people on this site isn't paying attention.......... Schiffy (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC) EDIT: I stand corrected, it's automatically coded in to the site. Why hasn't is changed itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schiffy (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

He was born in 1961, so today is his 51st (not 52nd) birthday. The Infobox is correct. SMP0328. (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my math was off, I was tired. Schiffy (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be a lot of work for someone to update every birthday of living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious upbringing

I removed the section "raised Muslim" because Obama senior was a Muslim until six years old. I don't see why his religious beliefs at the age of infancy to 5 should be relevant. People generally do not hold concrete belief systems at the age of 5. Pass a Method talk 08:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Good remove. HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree as well. Even if it had any value, it would be in the article about Obama's father. Presumably this is just about linking Obama to Islam. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Though I'm the one who reverted the edit, I won't argue with it now. Pass a Method, HiLo and Scjessey all make excellent points. In all honesty, I already knew the role of Islam in Barack Sr.'s life was trivial at best, but I didn't know he stopped practicing the religion that early (and when you're that young, you don't "practice" a religion so much as you go along with the rest of the family/community). szyslak (t) 13:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The quote used: "American President: Barack Obama". Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. 2009. http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/obama. Retrieved January 23, 2009. "Religion: Christian" --
I agree with not emphasizing Obama Sr.'s Muslim roots here, especially because BO Sr. was basically an absentee father with no direct influence on BO's upbringing. There is probably a place for tasteful mention of the Muslim influences on BO's personal development, but I would suggest that it be centered on his experiences in Indonesia, where as a child he was pretty much "along for the ride" in a Muslim majority culture. A good link for this might be Nicholas Kristoff's interview. Wookian (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this too - this does not belong here, and the way we handle it in Sr. works for that article. Tvoz/talk 15:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

However he is now an Messianic (He likes to speack about participating with his kids to a Messianic rabi to bless them with the blessing from Numbers chapter 6). So I agree the quote is good since "Christian" have same meaning with "Messianic", but the movement is not same as "Christianity" like in the above table, but "Messianism" in one word, or "Hebrew Roots" in two words. --FlorinCB (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing the fact that he was Muslim at age 6 is a biased attempt to hide any religious controversy. Rather than simply stating facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jptelthorst (talk • contribs) 14:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama did study Islam in school, and attend Muslim prayers. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/barack-obama-joined-muslim-prayers-at-school-teacher-says/story-e6frg6so-1225949239614 jptelthorst 14:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jptelthorst (talk • contribs)

Balance on the bin Laden killing

I think this revert was a mistake and I would like to place it for review here. --John (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a biography about Barack Obama. It is written in summary style, because there is so much information about that man and his life that it is impossible to put everything in a single article. Instead, where additional detail is needed there are sub/daughter articles. In the case of Osama bin Laden's death, the article is (not surprisingly) Death of Osama bin Laden. The specifics are covered in the section Operation Neptune Spear, and it probably makes sense to put the Amnesty International stuff in that section. In fact, Amnesty International's view is already in that article. There simply isn't the space for it here, and it probably violates WP:WEIGHT anyway. I hope this explanation satisfies you. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I am afraid it totally doesn't. I am an admin and I enforce NPOV and WEIGHT every day. To omit any of the negative response to this action whatsoever contravenes WP:NPOV. Read what WEIGHT actually says before you quote it, please. --John (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) - With all due respect, your status as an administrator has absolutely nothing to do with your knowledge/understanding of Wikipedia policy. I'm also an experienced editor with an intimate knowledge of WP:NPOV, but I've never chosen to seek the tools necessary to perform administrative actions. The Amnesty International view does not represent a significant viewpoint with respect to this article, having received little coverage in the mainstream media compared to other aspects of Obama's biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it seems we disagree. Let's see what other editors think. --John (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
"Balance" is not a valid editing criterion. That, combined with an NPOV assertion, is by definition a POV edit. If the legal / ethical objections to Bin Laden's killing are a noteworthy biographical event in the life and career of Obama (and sourced to be so), the subject of this article, then they are noteworthy and deserving of inclusion. If not, no. Whether that is critical or supportive of the President is neither here nor there, POV does not enter into the question. At any event, the claim isn't reliably sourced. "X objects to Y" [cite x] is not reliable sourcing, it's using the thing itself to source its own content, in other words primary sourcing. That doesn't establish weight or relevance at all. If you want to source that Amnesty International has an objection and establish that there is any weight to it, you have to find third party sources that cover Amnesty International's opinion and start from there. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, there were more than Amnesty who criticised the killing. Here are a few, fairly easily found sources.

--John (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is this edit which added the following at the end of Barack Obama#Osama bin Laden:

Legal and ethical aspects of the killing, such as his not being taken alive despite being unarmed, were questioned by others, including Amnesty International."Questions around operation against Osama bin Laden". Retrieved May 6, 2011.

Text like that is not suitable here as the matter is properly covered in the linked Death of Osama bin Laden (and reactions at Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden). There are mountains of text that could be in this article, but what should be here is a plain statement of the facts. The article does not puff up Obama's role—it just states the plain facts, leaving nuances, talking points, and opinions to the main article. Please do not add tags to a featured article watched by many editors to express dissatisfaction with a standard BRD event. Instead, explain why there is a need to check the section for neutrality: what existing text is not neutral? what significant view must be stated? Should there be mention of opinions held by OBL's supporters? What about those of the Pakistani government? There is no way to neutrally sum up views in this biography. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
(after multiple ec) The BBC is such a third party reliable source (the other two are opinion pieces - note: this is after an EC and I only had a chance to review the first 3 sources'). My hunch is that this is indeed easy to find and a significant enough matter to cover. I don't think you're being POV to propose this, just that "balance" is not really a great description of what we're trying to do. Something like "completeness" is a more neutral way to think of it. Keeping in mind that almost every significant event about Obama is covered in thousands to tens of thousands of articles, do we have the sense that the legal / ethical objections to the killing are treated by the sources as an important matter? Not that this is the standard, but if you read a hundred neutral accounts of the incident from different sources, would more than one or two mention this? Again, my hunch is yes. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
(comment re. Johnuniq) I generally agree. The issue here is that the article already contains a long sentence beginning "Reaction to the announcement was positive..." If we're going to describe the reaction, and there is a significant negative reaction in addition to a significant positive reaction, we ought to do this in a complete way and not just cover part of the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Completeness is a perfectly acceptable term to describe what we should be looking for here. It is not acceptable especially on a featured article on a politician, to omit significant criticism by a human rights organisation which was widely reported in the world's press, and only to report the positive reaction. There was both, and our article must reflect this. --John (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, John. This is the hard part of wikipedia. There is a big fight on politician's article for every edit to get accepted. Especially on this article, it is totally white washed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.68.58.196 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
See, that's the exact problem, people who want to add material that reflects poorly on Obama because they feel the article needs to be intentionally biased towards a more negative POV. There are accusations of whitewashing, being paid editors, and lots of other nonsense simply because the article does not give enough attention to Obama's opposition. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) My quick opinion is that if we are describing the reaction, then we must include a good summary. This would include the easily sourceable criticisms. Arkon (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

While I don't have much of an opinion about this particular issue (bin Laden being killed instead of taken alive), given that this is a section about foreign policy, it seems to me that the violating Pakistan's sovereignty is a far more serious issue, and one that has actually had an impact on US relations with another country. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
There are various people and nations who support, and oppose, any action of the US. Maybe we should drop the entire reaction material, otherwise we're getting into an "Obama woke up in the morning. Democrats approved, Republicans cried foul, Noam Chomsky argued that there are oppressed people living under American hegemony who did not even get up in the morning." - Wikidemon (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I could personally support dropping it all, but would have to agree that it's not complete as it stands. Arkon (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Amnesty International's descent into the fringe, as exemplified by this opinion, should not be included. I would suggest that if concerns were to be included, it would be far more appropriate to include mainstream Republican criticism about intel leaks in the wake of the operation.William Jockusch (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion got off to a bad start because this page is continually hit with people wanting to add negative material (haven't noticed any positive puffery for a while), and there was no explanation for the proposal. However, now that I've absorbed the point, it seems that while the last 100 similar attempts were misguided, this one is perfectly valid. The explanation is that the OBL section mentions the "positive across party lines" reaction, which is perfectly true, but which may suggest that everything was apple pie, which is not true. The solution is to either omit the "positive" comment (although that is a valid summary of what happened in many places), or mention that there were other views. The suggestion that "mainstream Republican criticism" should be included is exactly not appropriate as this biography is not the place to argue who is the best candidate. I recommend that John's text be restored unless someone has a good alternative. Any "balance" needs to reflect DUE opinions on Obama, and be a good fit for a biography. Johnuniq (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2012

I think the controversy over whether OBL should have been taken alive or dead deserves a few sentences.MONGO 14:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we get some sourcing that there is a bona fide controversy of significant proportions, and that this is relevant to Obama? We have sourcing that Amnesty International thinks so but no sourcing that this matters. Everyone has an opinion on everything the President does, that's too low a threshold. Without going through them all, google hits aren't conclusive, but as a start there are 13 news archive articles that mention Amnesty International in connection with the event[11] out of a total of 9,200.[12] Their particular opinion does not seem to matter much. Is there an indication that the sources mention this opposition in connection with a broad survey of the event? This article is a broad survey of Obama's life so an international legal / academic criticism of one particular act as head of state would have to be pretty important to be part of the telling of that life story. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm pretty ambivalent about this issue. I used to think of AI as needed protection from abusive Governments, but believe they have meandered into fringe territory the last decade or so. I'm sure some editors would like to add the AI indictment of George W. Bush for war crimes into the main Bush BLP(I hope it's not there, and don't think it belongs), but I believe the group is now a fringe entity that has greatly lowered it's international respect. I suppose if a neutral sentence is added with reliable secondary sourcing, it would be acceptable. Although I think it leads us down a bad road regarding living persons articles. Who will they indict next? Who will they accuse of war crimes? Those are serious allegations that should be carefully examined for credibility. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see AI as fringe. Rather, various western governments have badly lost their course - see extraordinary rendition, Camp X-Ray, "Enhanced interrogation techniques". AI has criticized torture and unjust imprisonment when it was primarily done by third world dictators, and it continues to do so now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the material should not be included, and this is not a close question. I find it remarkable that fringey criticism from the left is getting a serious hearing, while mainstream criticism from both parties that the White House is leaking intel is not under consideration for inclusion. [13][14][15][16]William Jockusch (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe the Amnesty International stuff as "fringey criticism from the left" at all. I'm pretty sure the Right and the Left are in unanimous agreement that killing Osama bin Laden was a double-plus good. I agree with Dave Dial in that Amnesty International has wandered off the path of the mainstream recently. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, fringey from the formerly-repsected organization Amnesty International . . . William Jockusch (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we currently have consensus here that the material I added should be restored; it is well-referenced and proportionate. I find it disappointing that on an article under probation we seem to have editors who will tag-team to edit-war material they just do not like out of the article. Where do we go next; RfC, FAR or AN/I? Let's think hard. --John (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • What consensus? I see the complete opposite. It would grossly violate WP:WEIGHT, as previously discussed. The matter has no significant impact on Obama's life, which this article describes. It probably has no impact at all, in fact. Also, the edit history shows that it is you who has chosen the path of edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
      • John -- wanting to see a consensus is not the same as actually seeing one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk • contribs)
        • Obviously no consensus at this point. There's a reasonable chance of building consensus for this content proposal or something like it with some more discussion, focusing the content, and sourcing. To do that we're really going to have to work on collaboration skills and not making threats, accusing editors of tag teaming, etc. That will go nowhere fast, so anyone who wants to go somewhere with this ought to focus on gaining consensus for a content change. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
          • WP:NPOV is a pillar of our project and cannot be held hostage to political considerations as it seems at the moment to be. It disgusts me to see a clique of editors here pissing on it. Collaboration? I don't see it; instead I see stonewalling, fear of change, and people making excuses when good sources have been provided. Sorry if I sound negative but that is really how it looks to me as an editor trying in good faith to improve this rather weak article. --John (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
            • There's good sourcing that Amnesty International launched some accusations of crimes but not that it's significant and relevant to the subject of this article. I don't see any new content argument in there so there's nothing to further consider just yet. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
              • There's good sourcing that a respected international body accused the subject of the article of serious crimes, and that this was picked up and covered by respected press organisations, yet it is your contention that this is not significant or relevant to the subject of the article. So this section (and I realise now that this is just one example of many in the article) only contains bland positive reaction, with no hint of the controversy and criticism which surrounded the event in the real world. This is what I mean by stonewalling, and this (I imagine) is how the article has come to be so poor. It honestly reads like a puff-piece written by one of his staff at the moment. --John (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is insane. If you were to list the top 100 things about Barack Obama's life, Amnesty International's opinion of the death of Osama bin Laden would not be in it. We don't even have room for the top 50 things, let alone the top 100. I see no possible way John can win a consensus to include this non thing so I support the close that was earlier proposed below. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree. However we if were to list the top 5 things about what the section is referring to (the killing of Bin Laden), this would probably fit. Arkon (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the AI opinion about the Bin Laden killing is too many steps away to include in a biography about Obama. Put it in the article about the killing, but not here. It is out of place and I believe UNDUE is correct. Shadowjams (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Is that the version of UNDUE that I am reading, that starts Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.? --John (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The key word there is significant. It can lead to some disagreement. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed. We are having one now. --John (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a misunderstanding of UNDUE. In most cases it's not appropriate to adorn every single fact of the President's life with dueling opinions by proponents and opponents, or any opinions at all, just the facts. I don't think we need to poll all the significant viewpoints in the world on what they think about Bin Laden's killing to illustrate the significance of the event to the Obama administration. The statement that it brought people together in a bipartisan way in the US, and internationally, may or may not be worth reporting - not that people happened to share a positive opinion for the sake of discussing viewpoints. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's a different understanding of UNDUE from yours, apparently. Tell me, do you honestly think this sentence fulfils WP:NPOV as it stands? "Reaction to the announcement was positive across party lines, including from former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and from many countries around the world." When deciding, and I hope you will give real thought to this, I would like you to consider especially the word "many". If you genuinely do this task, and genuinely come up with the answer "yes", then it becomes apparent that we have such different understandings of WP:NPOV that there is no further point in you and I continuing to discuss this. --John (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Clinton's and Bush's opinions aren't terribly pertinent (who listens to them? we don't poll past presidents' opinions usually on matters of state), and there is no context given to why bipartisan approval matters for an executive action where neither the voters nor Congress have a say. The daily press gives disproportionate coverage to punditry and partisanship, but WP:NOT#NEWS - sources that go into depth on the substance of the event don't waste ink or pixels on that. I don't see any point accompanying one irrelevant opinion by adding an even less relevant opinion. If any reactions or opinions matter, worldwide relief coupled with Pakistan's shame and defiance, are probably what counts. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, at least we can agree that the article as it stands is way off what it should be. --John (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Propose to close

I just noticed this piece of nastiness.[24] I don't think there's anymore to talk about here. Propose to close as rejected / no consensus. No further discussion is worthwhile unless proposing editor can be civil and collaborative about this. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. Sorry if honesty offends you. Practice what you preach. --John (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't soliciting your opinion but I'll strike the proposal. Someone will close this discussion or it will auto-archive soon enough. If you want to build consensus around a proposal next time, "if you disagree with me you're a bunch of finks" is not going to win the argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Excessively wordy

This article has this problem.

I take one section as an example. 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Here are some sentences that have very little impact on the biography of Barack Obama. Keep these and the section becomes longer than some more important sections.

At the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, Hillary Clinton called for her supporters to endorse Obama, and she and Bill Clinton gave convention speeches in his support.[107] Challengers always endorse the winner. This is not newsworthy.

e and the two engaged in three presidential debates in September and October 2008.[112] Not so important. All recent candidates have debates

He became the first African American to be elected president.[115] Obama delivered his victory speech before hundreds of thousands of supporters in Chicago's Grant Park.[116] Already mentioned that he's the first AA and all winners have victory speeches

George Tupou VII (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I took a look at a couple of sections and he quality of the writing is terrible. I started copy-editing it, but there are so many more serious problems of completeness that it seems premature to do this until the more major problems have been addressed. --John (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree thanks for bringing it up. I also think the lede is too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT - you've brought up several examples. If those are the places you think it's too wordy, how about proposing a change or just editing it for brevity? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I started copy-editing it, but there are so many more serious problems of completeness that it seems premature to do this until the more major problems have been addressed. --John (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Claims of puffery or exaggerated claims

Do a control f search for the words to avoid and you will see that some work needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not actionable - no examples given. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)::The examples are below.

controversial great explain

Also there are instances where the word people could be replaced with teh word citizens. Except when meaning noncitizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do that? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think It sounds more fitting: Doesn't this sound better than this?
to end the Don't ask, don't tell policy of 1993 that had prevented gay and lesbian citizens from serving openly in the United States Armed Forces.[145] to end the Don't ask, don't tell policy of 1993 that had prevented gay and lesbian people from serving openly in the United States Armed Forces.[145] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Citizenship is not a requirement of service in the American military rewinn (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

served, and dating

Should we use the As of  year tag for the "current president"? I don' t think the word serve should be used in this "Obama served as Senator". The definition of serve is(Webster): 1a : to be a servant b  : to do military or naval service 2  : to assist a celebrant as server at mass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2012‎ (UTC)

6. to go through a term of service; do duty as a soldier, sailor, senator, juror, etc. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Served is an accurate word. Sometimes an active word is needed and "was" doesn't cut it. I've changed once instance to improve the flow but I'm not sure it's actually better.[25] - Wikidemon (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
(Edit: I see that in several articles about presidents, the word serve is used.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. If you look up "public servant" in Webster or another dictionary, you will find that it is a term applied (perhaps most often in times past) to both elected and appointed government officials or employees. In President James Madison's first inaugural address, he spoke of his own presidency in terms like "I repair to the post assigned me ... its high duties ... into this arduous service". Kind of funny here, since one notable faux pas committed by an Obama advisor after his election was won in 2008 was in saying that Obama was "ready to rule on day one". I am sure Obama was embarrassed by her language, as Americans have always frowned on the terminology of monarchy coming from those they'd rather think of as leading the nation as "public servants". Wookian (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

wta in quotations

Should words that need are to be avoided be used anyway if they are part of a quotation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Yes, if the quotation is apt. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

bid

I don' t think the word bid should be used in this "Following an unsuccessful bid against the democratic incumbent... Obama"

The definition of bid is(reference.com) 1. to command; order; direct: to bid them depart. 2. to express (a greeting, farewell, benediction, or wish): to bid good night. 3. Commerce . to offer (a certain sum) as the price one will pay or charge: They bid $25,000 and got the contract. 4. Cards . to enter a bid of (a given quantity or suit): to bid two no-trump. 5. to summon by invitation; invite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2012‎ (UTC)

11. [#4 as a noun] an attempt to attain some goal or purpose: a bid for election. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes yes-I hear it used all the time. The connotation is a average of all its meanings, so I would use a different word in this case.
Bid is slightly informal but it is a term of art used to describe a run for elective office. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

winning and losing elections

There is a discrepancy in the lede. The lede lists the elections that Obama has been in. In the elections that Obama recieved more votes than his opponent, the article says that Obama won or was victorious or defeated McCain. It would be fitting to say that in the elections that Obama received less votes than his opponent, the article should say something close to or exactly that Obama lost. This is not the case. This is the discrepancy. "Unsucessful bid" is puffery and should be replaced with "loss". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Unsuccessful (or failed) bid puts the emphasis on the running, loss puts the emphasis on the outcome. There was a more fundamental problem, as the sentence basically said "following xxxx" in 2000 he did yyyy in 2004, even though between 2000 and 2004 he was a state legislator. So the 2004 event didn't really follow from the 2000 event. I reworded to be in better chronological order.[26]
But why not always use the same amount of emphasis weather he wins or loses?

recession

The lede uses the word late 2000s recession to refer to the article titled the 2008 to 2012 recession. Its deceiving to use this way of referencing the event because it is ongoing according to the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Fixed[27] - the link was intended to refer to the US recession, which ended in 2009, not the ongoing global recession. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

enacting legislation

In its brevity, the lede makes it sound like the domestic policy initiatives were Obama's work alone. I prefer the wording used in the articles about the laws: "enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama."

Again there is a discrepancy in the wording of the events in the lede. In countries that Obama has withdrawn troops levels from eventually to zero, the phrase ending the Iraq war is used. Yet in cases where military intervention is described, it uses the phrase: increased troop levels. I believe the most neutral phrasing would be to replace ended the Iraq war with "ended military involvement in Iraq." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

On the first point, attributing Congressional initiatives to the president who signs them is a problem with all articles about Presidents, not sure what can be done about it. Giving a condensed legislative history would get too wordy. On the second, I'm not sure what the difference is but I went ahead and implemented that.[28] - Wikidemon (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Id prefer a correct but wordy attribution. What about this:

"enacted by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama."

ordering bin laden operation

I oppose the wording "ordered by President Obama." Again, this distorts the events to maximize the involvement in the matter. If I recall correctly, I believe that the role was more like this: The CIA asked Obama if they should proceed with their mission and he said yes. Is this not the casE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't just a rubber stamp, it was a pretty bold decision made against advice of some. However, you're right. I've changed the word to "approved".[29] - Wikidemon (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it was an order. The U.S. military acts solely on orders, not on the approval of recommendations of an agency. Saying otherwise is pretty much accusing Obama of unconstitutional behavior and the U.S military of going on a mission without having been given an order to do so. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked at a bunch of sources, and they tend to say that he authorized or approved the action. From an executive standpoint, as opposed to a military one, I think that's how one would describe it. He had a bunch of options on the table, including inaction. He chose one of them. I suspect this word choice question applies to descriptions of most Presidential actions. When a President signs a bill or executive order is he approving it, or ordering that it be carried out? Both, really. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
All 3 of the sources used in the Bin Laden section that describe the action of the President specifically state he ordered the action. 1- (Obama gave the order on Friday morning for the action that ended in bin Laden’s death, 2- on Friday morning, just before leaving Washington to tour tornado damage in Alabama, gave the final order for members of the Navy Seals and C.I.A. operatives to strike, 3- (Obama's) role in ordering the operation and announcing its successful completion provides a counterweight to criticism of his foreign policy, particularly his use of U.S. power). I wouldn't think there would be much controversy on the wording "ordered" concerning this event. The US military doesn't cross the borders of a sovereign nation to execute a mission such as this without a direct order from the POTUS. Dave Dial (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
In fact, the President not only orders the action, but he must do so in the specific form of an executive order so that nobody else can be held accountable. It's not like some general offers him a plan and he says "sure WHATEVA, dude". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem using the words executive order. The problem is that the original wording describes an event much different than what happened. How about this:

Obama authorized the CIA's plan with an executive order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No. He ordered. End of story. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Would we use "ordered" as the verb for all executive orders (noun)? Scanning the sources I see "signed" is the most common verb for executive orders, and occasionally others like "agreed", "issued", etc. Regarding this operation many sources say "authorized",[30] including Obama himself.[31] Ordered is also used, as is approved. The problem with "ordered" is that it carries a secondary meaning of going it alone by fiat or whim (as might an absolute or autocratic ruler), whereas in practice, the President's job is normally to choose among various alternatives on the table (and tell people to work on them, or carry them out). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I hate to call you out on this, but you are citing one of those false emails as a claim that "Obama himself" used 'authorize'. Except that quote is from the false email, that is confirmed by Politifact that Obama never used. In fact, Politifact ends their analysis by stating "Obama did order the raid to kill bin Laden...It's clear from our research that all six quotes are fabrications. Once again a widely circulated chain e-mail is spreading ridiculous falsehoods about Obama. We rate this e-mail Pants on Fire." In any case, Obama was acting as Commander in Chief. Both order and authorize are true(a President authorizes the use of military force), but order is more precise in this instance because of the sources and facts. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "order" is an OK word choice. Various political opponents of Obama have been rankled by his alleged exaggerations of his own role in killing OBL and going all-out to make political hay out of it (like this dude). They would see it as a lucky break for Obama since he happened to be in the Presidency at just the right time, and point out that any sane president would have given the authorization. That evaluation may be true (I personally think it likely)... but Obama is commander in chief, and he is entitled to claim that he ordered the operation. So it's sort of just "tough beans" for his political opponents on that score. Wookian (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

QE2

On September 30, 2009, the Obama administration proposed new regulations on power plants, factories and oil refineries in an attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to curb global warming.[136][137

appears in the article. It is not too important about Mr. Obama. If he made it a campaign issues and kept talking about it, maybe. In contrast, nothing is mentioned as far as I can see about QE2. QE2 is about economics and made the front page of major newspapers, including Baron's. Wawaxi (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

For consideration

Article seems pretty strict on making additions, so I don't want to fall foul. Here, then, are a few recent things for consideration:

"During his last year at Columbia, and at a low-level corporate job that followed, Obama brooded over his need to acquire a black identity—a sign was the copy of Ellison's Invisible Man which he took with him everywhere. He had never thought of himself as black before. The two girlfriends of those years whom Maraniss has traced, and an unnamed third in his first year in Chicago, were white, and so were many of his friends. . . . 'There are a few instances,' Maraniss notes, 'where black figures in the book [Dreams from My Father] have characteristics and histories that Obama took from white friends.'"
Bromwich, David (5 July 2012). "Diary". London Review of Books. 34 (13): 42–43. Retrieved 4 August 2012.
<ref>{{cite journal |last= Bromwich |first= David |authorlink= David Bromwich |date= 5 July 2012 |title= Diary |url= http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n13/david-bromwich/diary |journal= [[London Review of Books]] |volume= 34 |issue= 13 |pages= 42–43 |accessdate= 4 August 2012 }}</ref>

Slave ancestor

Goldstein, Bonnie (30 July 2012). "Obama descended from slave ancestor, researchers say". She The People. WashingtonPost.com. Retrieved 4 August 2012.
<ref>{{cite web |last= Goldstein |first= Bonnie |date= 30 July 2012 |title= Obama descended from slave ancestor, researchers say |url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/obama-descended-from-slave-ancestor-researchers-say/2012/07/30/gJQAUw4BLX_blog.html |work= She The People |publisher= [[The Washington Post|WashingtonPost.com]] |accessdate= 4 August 2012 }}</ref>

Skirtsy My talkEdits 14:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)sock comment--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bromwitch quote doesn't add anything significant that isn't already in the article. Perhaps it would be of interest to the article about Dreams From My Father
The Goldstein article doesn't seem terribly significant; it is interesting trivia that Obama may have had slave ancestry on his mother's side, but there's no evidence that this affected anything about him. One might as well discuss the likelihood that he's related to Dick Cheney; if there's a trivia section that sort of thing might go there. rewinn (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

::I hear you on the Bromwich. The inclusion of the slave ancestry was because the article currently asserts that he definitely wasn't: "Obama is also not a descendant of American slaves." Skirtsy My talkEdits 23:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)sock comment--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point. The simple solution is to delete the "not a descendant" sentence since it, too, is basically trivia. Most American presidents were not descendants of slaves, and what is noteworthy about Obama that we was or was not? It may be distantly related to his upbringing as a mixed-race man but it's not one of the important things about him anymore (maybe it was before he was elected President but at this point, there are more than 100 things about Obama more significant.) rewinn (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Slave ancestor #2

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that Obama is descended from John Punch who was the earliest documented African slave in Virginia.--Other Choices (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Trivia. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Tarc, especially because Ancestry.com claims this is only probably true. SMP0328. (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Time for a Featured Article Review?

It is time to put this baby to bed. The Featured Article Review process is not to be used or abused because one does not like certain things in an article, those are issues that we handle via normal, simple editing procedures. FAR is to identify and correct major deficiencies in a Featured Article that call into question it still being an FA at all. This ain't that, time to move on. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)}}

I hadn't read this for quite a while and I see quite a few problems with its quality. I also notice its Featured Article status hasn't been properly reviewed since 2008. In that time, standards at FA have risen significantly. I wonder how regular editors would feel about conducting a proper audit to see whether the wider community think this article meets current FA criteria? I feel it could only benefit the article to undergo such a process. --John (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We're barely 100 days out from the election, and this article will doubtless receive a growing number of attacks from vandals and POV warriors if 2008 was any indication. Are you sure you want to get into a FAR procedure with all that going on? A review would be welcome, but only after the seas are calmer. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I think an FAR would be very beneficial, especially given the visibility of the article. The purpose of FARs is to discuss possible improvements "without declarations of "keep" or "delist"', with the aim "to improve articles rather than to demote them" (see WP:FAR). —Eustress talk 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but the timing is bad. Regular editors of this article will probably concur with me when I say that things are going to get messy here over the next 3 months. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If people believe that a review would be beneficial, I see no problem with the timing. Arkon (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If it happens now, it will be a circus. The FAR will also become a target for the fuckwits who'll be soon laying this article to siege. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Please, your bad faith is showing. Comments like this only make the need for a review more clear, and help to turn this into the circus you decry. Arkon (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Bad faith? What are you talking about? I'm just saying that in the run up to the previous election, this article was constantly under attack from partisan editors and vandals. I think it likely this will happen again, which means a FAR procedure could be difficult to go through at the same time. Where's the bad faith in that? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
"If it happens now, it will be a circus. The FAR will also become a target for the fuckwits who'll be soon laying this article to siege." I don't know how that can be read to contain any good faith whatsoever. Arkon (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
"Fuckwits" is my term for the vandals that attacked the article last time around. Examples include the fuckwits who blanked the article, the fuckwits who replaced the article with "Obama rocks!", the fuckwits who replaced the article with "Obama is a Muslim!" - there were literally hundreds of these fuckwits in 2008. Nobody assumes good faith with blatant vandals. Why are you making a big deal out of this? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
All of those things are easily and quickly handled (I was here for 2008 too, you know). Hardly an argument against a review. Arkon (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it got so bad it turned into an Arbcom thing. I'm not against a review, I'm just saying it might be a problem trying to do it at the same time, that's all. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

← I totally agree with Scjessey about the timing. Things got so bad here leading up to the 2008 election that we had to go to ArbCom, leading to article probation with strict behavioral guidelines. There was a great deal of disruption and Arkon, quite to the contrary, those things were not at all easily or quickly handled. I believe that doing a FAR now will certainly destabilize this article. So close to the election a FAR could be used as a political tactic - I'm not saying that the suggestion in itself is a political tactic, but I believe it can be used as such. I am saying that FAR in good times can be difficult, and doing it when a huge amount of attention will no doubt be on it is a prescription for chaos. When things settle down, a FAR would be fine. Right now, I strongly oppose it. (And I would similarly oppose such a review for Mitt Romney's GA status now.) Tvoz/talk 22:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. There are certainly people still here that were involved in that arbcom case (Not it). That much is correct. But what Scjessey described was not the behavior that caused it. I am trying to stop that behavior, you are welcome to help there. None of your comment is an argument against review. This isn't scare tactics :) Arkon (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As a general comment: Seriously? This is the wiki page for the President of the United States of America. You think a FA review will be overwhelmed? Again, seriously? How many people have this page watchlisted again? I can't accept that as a reason. If you think it would result in some of you going to arbcom, take your bruises if you did something wrong, but try not to. I'm trying to keep it from going there. If your reasoning is best, you'll gain consensus, the end. Arkon (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it could be a big mess. The immediate timing and circumstance of this proposal is problematic. As far as it being near election time, this article along with John McCain got to FA status in the first place on the eve of an election that was at least as contentious as the current one, so it's theoretically possible now. But it probably would be extra difficult given the concerns about trolling, socking, etc. Just what is the reasoning for doing it at this time? Is there any specific concern about a possible deterioration in article quality? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The reason for doing it at this time would be that pretty much every commenter has agreed that it's a good idea. Timing is the only issue, and I find the argument specious. We have semi-protect, full protection, and blocks. Look, I have comic book character articles that get more vandalism than this page on my watchlist. When is a better time? Arkon (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The article, in its current state, seems to struggle with all five parts of criterion 1, especially a, b and d. There is no way an article as badly written and uncritically positive would pass in 2012. If not now, when? --John (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Just to be clear, I do not think there has been a deterioration that would require a FAR at this time, and I think the argument against doing it now is strong. When I said that at some point it would be "fine", I wasn't saying it was a good idea, or that I thought it was warranted. I was saying I don't unilaterally oppose the concept of a FAR at some point, if there is consensus that there are significant problems with the rating, but the timing is indeed the problem. And no, I am not concerned that I would be taken to ArbCom, or that any of the long-time conscientious editors here would - the point is that we needed the extreme imposition of article probation at least in part because of the influx of editors with political agendas. I am saying that the process itself can be used for political purposes, and as such - absent a compelling reason for it being done now - the stability of the article should be maintained though the election. (Same for the Romney bio.) Perhaps you don't remember the amount and nature of the vandalism and disruption that plagued these articles before the last election, but I do, and I feel strongly that this is not the time to declare open season on them. I expect we'll have more than enough to handle without the added FAR process. Tvoz/talk 00:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
There doesn't need to have been deterioration; as I said, standards have risen and what passed in 2007 often wouldn't pass now. Review is nothing to be afraid of. --John (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess someone needs to say this: but bring up a FAR at this time is extremely suspect. Especially as the proposer mentions: "uncritically positive" which is a derivation said by those on the far right. The same people who come here to crusade in an attempt to change this article into one that is seen on conservapedia. If the proposer's aim is only to improve the article and not to impart a conservative POV, then waiting a bit will not hurt anything at all. Yet, pushing forward now with the clear understanding that this processes will be gamed, disrupted, and used to push POV's into the article, is clearly an extremely bad and suspect idea. Also please note: if this is allowed to continue forward, then people will come out of the wood work pushing for inclusion every election talking point. Heck, I can guarantee you that as soon as Mitt Romney makes a claim against Obama, then people would rush over here to try and include it. (This has happened before and will happen again is allowed to continue forward.) 74.79.34.29 (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the whole "this article is POV because it doesn't include enough negative stuff about Obama" line of argument spells trouble and isn't a legitimate argument for FAR. If there's anything that should be included but isn't, or is but shouldn't be, let's hear it. But it's pointless to talk about intentionally applying a negative/positive POV shift. That's precisely the wrong way to edit the encyclopedia, and there's a strong enough consensus that we shouldn't be manipulating the criticism level that it's got an entire section in the FAQs (#6 though #9) on this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, it's useful to look at the FAR history of the article. The last full review was November 4, 2008 (those after were summarily closed as bad faith nominations), although one editor did attach a new template he was testing out declaring that the December 11, 2011 was a stable version of a featured article.[32] Interestingly, all or nearly all of the FAR were beset with some trolling on the subject of the article supposedly being a pro-Obama whitewash. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Unconstructive subthread started by block-evading user; feel free to continue constructive discussion below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[redacted]
Rather than grumble, why not propose specific edits? Assuming that you are acting in good faith, let me state for the record that vague talk about a "saintly image" is a waste of your time; it doesn't help develop consensus for change. We might also question what's the hurry? If the article has been deteriorating for four years, then surely another 100 days will matter little. It's not as if wikipedia has anything like the advertising budget of the political campaigns (...although perhaps Jimmy Wales could approach them for a few crumbs ...) rewinn (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
[redacted]
True. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Back on topic. All talk of fuckwits and conspiracy theories aside, criterion 1b says that the article should be neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias and I would very strongly contend that the article does not currently meet this, as it it applied on Wikipedia in the modern day. The toxic editing environment no doubt contributes to the low quality of the article. The object of a review would be to improve the article and help it to conform to the featured article criteria. It is hard for me to maintain good faith in the face of arguments against reviewing an article which was promoted in 2008 and has not been reviewed since, especially as I start to examine the article in detail and see just how poor the writing is, as well as the 1b concerns. --John (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
We've heard that song so many times before -- accompanied as here by accusations of bad faith -- that it's hard to keep track. FAR does not seem like a good tool for the questionable goal of biasing the article to add more criticism of its biographical subject, a proposition that has been explicitly rejected multiple times here. Again, see FAQ 6 through 9. If there are specific places where you feel the article may be strengthened, why not propose those here, or if it's a simple uncontroversial matter, just do it. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I have seen this before. When you reach a point where you are finding it "hard to keep track", when you meet any attempt to address problems in the article with allegations of misconduct, when you find it impossible to assume good faith: these are all signs that it is time to step away and let others work on the article. It's a big community, and sometimes an article has become stuck and is as good as the current group of editors can make it. Why are you so afraid of putting it up for wider review? What have you got to lose? --John (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, they're having the exact same debate over at the Romney article. People adding and removing dispute tags, proposals to add more criticism, and claims that the article is biased because it's been scrubbed of anti-Romney talking points (Bain, Olympic comments, his dog) by a supposed cabal of Romney supporters. A useful bit of perspective. For what it's worth I would say the same thing here as there, best to resist all that stuff and stick to presenting the events of the person's life in a factual way. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw. But there's the rub; "stick to presenting the events of the person's life in a factual way" should not mean presenting only the positive aspects of a subject. --John (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you've fallen for a common misconception there. Most noteworthy events in most people's lives are positive, in the sense that they document some kind of milestone or achievement, not the absence of an achievement. We say Bruce Springsteen is a successful singer and songwriter who has sold millions of albums. We don't follow that with "but he is a lousy tennis player, and many people are really tired of his dance moves". The facts of who a person is and what they've done are positive only in the sense that they are the presence of something that counts to the encyclopedic sources rather than its absence, we don't need to get into whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. It's only in the realm of politics that every statement, position, and action of a candidate is met with dueling claims of virtue and fault by supporters and opponents. That's important information, and Wikipedia covers politics too, but this article and Romney's are biographies, not political scorecards. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you've also fallen into a misconception. This is an article about a person that -everyone- has an opinion on. There will be counter points to just about every achievement, this can be seen throughout wikipedia on high profile people. Arkon (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The best time to evaluate and improve an article is now. Someone mentioned timing of the election. If one is campaigning, timing is important. For Wikipedia, the best time to improve and evaluate an article is now. Also wanting to evaluate an article is not a vote for Romney as Wikipedia is not your local polling station. I am for a FA review and I voted for President Obama. Evergreenme (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Block-evading user again; feel free to discuss this like adults below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yeah, it's just coincidence that this one happens to keep all the negative stuff out of the article or hides it at the bottom of the page or in child articles. No need for political scorecards here, move along citizen. --AConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If you have nothing useful to contribute except sarcastic stuff, I respectfully suggest you go back to editing Nobrainapedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've looked over the comments for and against. Someone called it FAR so I will. The comments against FAR should be looked at the closest since these people are against the normal process. The timing is mentioned but there is the rest of the summer and early fall to have the FAR so that it will be ready for the election, if that is the goal. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an election advertisement, I think, so some may say timing should be ignored.

The other point raised was that FAR destabilizes the article. However, FAR improves the article so by saying this, one is proposing a bad article that doesn't change. This logic is certainly wrong.

As a result, I conclude that the FAR should start but there be caution to identify fuckwit comments. Evergreenme (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

FAR is badly needed as article is terribly unbalanced.William Jockusch (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a strong argument against. FAR isn't a procedural tool for tilting the scales to make an article more disparaging of its subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, it is a procedural tool for making sure the article fits the FA criteria, which this currently does not, due to its lack of balance. I'm not Grundle; if the article fairly represented the major, mainstream concerns with Obama, I wouldn't be pushing for this. William Jockusch (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(undent) Comment from a FAR delegate here, solely on technical aspects, feel free to ignore as you wish: As per the FAR instructions, this talk page step is designed to be a time when "concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.". I see none of that here. Instead, I see several people going "the article sucks" with no examples. I see comments about the prose, with no examples. I see comments about the neutrality, with no examples. FAR is not about summarily delisting articles, it is about improving them if necessary. The talk page step is designed to be a step in which the article can be improved to the point that it doesn't need to go to FAR. There are obviously several editors willing to work on the article, so why not give them the information that you would at a FAR, so they can work on the article? You will be expected to provide specific examples of problems at FAR - generalities and broad sweeps with no specific examples will get you nowhere. Also, content disputes between two groups of editors are not FAR territory - take those to one of the dispute resolution noticeboards, or possibly ArbCom, since the article has already been there once. If everyone says an article is non-neutral, that's FAR territory, if some say it's neutral and some say it isn't, that's ArbCom territory. Again, this step is designed for article improvement and discussion, not for broad sweeping statements that then are not expanded upon when other editors say that they feel a FAR is unwarranted. Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement

OK, here are some areas that should be changed for balance:

  1. Budget deficits. Some useful context is available in the Bill Clinton article, which mentions the unusual, remarkable, and frankly amazing budget surpluses that came in the later years of the Clinton Presidency. This was an unusual achievement for a President, and it is entirely appropriate that the article covers the surpluses, with a graph. By the token, the deficits we have seen during the Obama years are greatly out of line with prior Presidencies, and remarkable in the same way that the Clinton surpluses are remarkable. Both the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve have said that the deficits are unsustainable. This situation ought to be explained and covered.
  2. The article's employment graph is designed in a promotional, rather than an informational, manner. Other articles relating to unemployment are the articles on Unemployment, the Great Depression, and the Panic of 1893. In each case, the article has a graph or table of the unemployment rate, not of the change in employment. This article, by contrast, has a graph which shows both the unemployment rate and the change in employment. Furthermore, the chosen scales for the axes on the graph, as well as the graphical design, are chosen to highlight the change in employment, rather than the unemployment rate figure. Coincidentally or not, the change in employment is also a statistic that is more Obama-friendly.

-- William Jockusch (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, (1) is largely because Republicans have blocked even the most modest of revenue increases. As for (2), why would you want a graph that offers less information to the reader? It would seem that by "balance", you mean fudge it to make it sound better for Republicans. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm with WJ on this one. True, this brings this article more in line with standard Wikipedia practices, and true, it looks better for Republicans. In truth, neither the rate nor the change, nor both put together, are a complete picture of the unemployment situation. There are plenty of external factors why the budget surplus in the late 1990s wasn't Bill Clinton's doing, unless you count his pal inventing the Internet. Chips fall where they may. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
William, you brought the graph issue up previously and it was discussed at length. Do you have any new arguments? —Eustress talk 23:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Eustress -- basically, no. Dana Boomer asked how things could be improved, and I answered the question. The one thing that does appear to have changed is that before I felt like a voice in the wilderness on the balance issue, but now it appears to be getting considerable traction on this page.William Jockusch (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Start FAR

Starting a FAR is a good idea. What is the first step to starting a FAR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The first step is to read the discussion we've been having about it earlier on this talk page and note the consensus to wait until things have settled down. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus involving Barack Obama FAR at the moment and clearly "concerned editors attempting to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors." That meets the first criteria for FAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
What exactly does this mean "wait until things have settled down?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Please read the FAR-related discussion above, where that has been fully explained. Also, please sign your comments with four tilde characters ("~~~~"). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I have and it is clear that there is no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Everyone agrees that a FAR will be needed, but there is no agreement that now is the time to do it. There are several voices, including my own, that note a FAR procedure will be difficult to deal with as we draw closer to the election because this article will endure increased activity from partisan editors and vandals. Moreover, there is a high probability that the FAR procedure would be abused by those same individuals. Already, there are calls for FAR to be used to create "balance", which is an abuse of the process. The best time to work through FAR is probably in December/January, since they are usually relatively quiet months for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Once the election hoopla is over will be a better time. There's no pressing concern or need right now as the article is under increased scrutiny and vandalism the closer we get to November 4th. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have already read that and many disagree with it. There is no consensus. Vandals can be reverted and as long as partisan editors follow the policies, I welcome them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please hold on everyone. I strongly urge any of the involved editors not to add or remove the FAR nomination or to further any FAR process, consensus or no, until we get some guidance. There is no rush here, and edit warring is more disruptive to editing process than simply being patient. If this comes up as an administrative case, do you really want to have to explain why you were edit warring? I'll ask for some help here. Meanwhile, please sit back and take a look at the reasoning behind this comment.[33] Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


FAR is the way to go, Look at the Israel section...suggestions

Dana, the FAR delegate, suggests that FAR should be done when there is consensus to have it. SCJessey admits that practically everyone wants it, it's just timing. My response to Dana is that there is more cooperation to article improvement if there is a FAR because suggestions are shot down if there is no FAR. The excuse can be that "it's a FA so don't change it" to just being ignored and edits removed.

Look at even this talk page. I put an edit and quoted an IP user from another country and someone removed them. THIS COULD BE VANDALISM.

Please do not close this box

Tarc says it is time to move on but this is wrong. FAR is needed because this article is so broken. One example is the last section about his religion. We all know he is a Christian. Yet other Wikipedia presidential articles do not devote so much space to religion. However, there is no mention that Obama's been falsely accused of being a Muslim. Instead, there is 3 paragraph about Christianity, almost as if Wikipedia is trying to prove to the reader and shout "HE IS A CHRISTIAN CHRISTIAN CHRISTIAN".

Yet the article is so broken that such discussion is immediately closed by a reader. It even caused another person, Wikidemon, to make additional comments.

Because this article is so broken, it needs a FAR to bring it up to FA standards. This is not an attack on my favorite President but is a way to bring the article up to standard. George Tupou VII (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a stupid idea. We do not need FAR to improve the article. That is not what FAR is for. The article is not "broken". Stupid. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not live in the US and am not American but English is my first language. I do not think that writing in this article is very good. It very choppy. I believe a reassessment is needed. I also see that others agree with my assessment. Wawaxi (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Here are quotes by others (I'm not against a review, I'm just saying it might be a problem trying to do it at the same time, that's all. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC) and I took a look at a couple of sections and he quality of the writing is terrible. I started copy-editing it, but there are so many more serious problems of completeness that it seems premature to do this until the more major problems have been addressed. --John (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC) ) I agree: I'm not against a review, am for it if done civilly, and the quality of the writing is terrible. Wawaxi (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am quite surprised that there would be debate about FAR. Whenever there is discussion about improvement, we should always listen. We should say "let's delay it". Spevw (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for FAR. We are quite capable of improving the article through discussion right here. Editors claiming this article needs to go through FAR because it is "so broken" are transparently trying to abuse FAR. Probably, their goal is to get the article into FARC. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"You didn't build that"

I would appreciate comment over at Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 concerning this paragraph describing the campaign fisticuffs over Obama's recent speech in Roanoke. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting GOP talking-points with a pro-Democrat spin is not a good thing. This bias doesn't seem to be the one source I read.[34] But since I've never heard of this incident, I would recommend just dropping the section from the article rather than fixing it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(wrote a long paragraph here, but now moving it to the Talk page linked above by Scjessey) Wookian (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I left out the word, "in". I should read, "This bias doesn't seem to be in the one source I read." I generally find FactCheck to be reliable, but here's another source.[35] Again, our section seems to reflect a bias not present in the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Best to talk about it over there. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll comment where ever I please, thank you very much. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, anytime :) - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here? In the long run this will blur into the background of all the campaign noise that is likely to come and go in the next few months. It obviously doesn't belong in the bio, maybe (and only if there is some significance to this particular noise) in the campaign article, but, as pointed out above, that should be taken up in that article and is pointless to discuss here. Anyway, just curious why this was a topic on this page.Jdlund (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't write that! - Wikidemon (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(Heh.) I think Scjessey just wants to notify editors here who are interested in topics touching on Barack Obama, which is appropriate. I also concur that debate is best not duplicated on both pages (see the campaign talk page for discussion ad nauseam). Wookian (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sentence Elephantiasis

Regarding Obama's parents and their relationship:

"The couple married in Wailuku on Maui on February 2, 1961,[15][16] separated when Obama's mother moved with her newborn son to Seattle, Washington in late August 1961 to attend the University of Washington for one year, while Obama Sr. completed his undergraduate economics degree in Hawaii in June 1962 then left to attend graduate school at Harvard University on a scholarship, and were divorced in March 1964."

I wouldn't ordinarily bother over inelegant language in Wikipedia, but the subject is the leader of the free world, it would be nice if his entry wasn't so burdened with subordinate clauses. May I suggest?

"The couple married in Wailuku on Maui on February 2, 1961<ref>. In late August 1961 they separated, Obama's mother moving with her newborn son to Seattle, WA, while his father stayed in Hawaii to complete his undergraduate degree, and then attended graduate school at Harvard on a scholarship. The couple were divorced in March 1964.<ref>"

Silas Maxfield (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems a useful improvement although I might suggest a tiny bit more trimming for the sake of minimizing prolixity:
"The couple married in Wailuku on Maui on February 2, 1961<ref>. In August 1961 they separated, Obama's mother moving with her newborn son to Seattle, WA, while his father stayed in Hawaii to complete an undergraduate degree, and then attended graduate school at Harvard. The couple divorced in March 1964.<ref>" rewinn (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See FAQ-Q2

Has been discussed many times before, time to close Dave Dial (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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.

Last time I checked, Obama is not "black" and he wasn't born in Africa. Last time I checked (it's even in the article), Obama was born in Hawaii to a white woman and a black man. Why is that not a "mixed-race American?" Either Wikipedia is full of Birthers, or it's so afraid to LOOK like they are politically incorrect that they would prefer to have false information on their pages. It's just sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuna33 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tuna33. If you haven't yet, I suggest that you locate the FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) bar near the top of this page and click the "Show" link on it. Then you can click more "show" links to view individual FAQ questions, such as the one addressing this very question. Short answer: our reliable sources refer to Obama as African American, so Wikipedia must follow their lead. And it isn't racist, improper, "conspiracy theorizing", or even disrespectful to do so, because this is also how President Obama chooses to refer to himself. So as imperfect as race designations are, this is the best we can do right now. Wookian (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Why do the sources pertaining to genealogy not trump media reports when characterizing him as the "first black..."? Those reporting in the media are not experts on genetics, family history, or race. Of course, it is true that Obama is the first African American U.S. president, but it may be more accurate to say he is the first U.S. president of significant African descent (using a genealogical study as a reference) while noting that he is considered "the first African American president" without using weasel words and citing media reports.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
There isn't agreement on terminology relating to race, and the identification of a person's race remains a highly personal matter in many situations. There are many people who self-identify as "white" who are mixed race and many people who self-identify as "black" or "African American" who are mixed race. It's not wrong, it's just vague by its nature. And that's why mainstream non-scientific sources are not only acceptable but also preferred here, and we aren't polling geneticists. Wookian (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Self-identification is meaningless. We don't call Elizabeth Warren a Native American just because she used to self-identify that way. We don't refer to Bill Clinton as the "first black president" since he was given that title. The problem here is that non-experts are being given more weight than necessary. "The first U.S. president of significant African descent" is consistent with scientific fact.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a genetics encyclopedia or article. Per the FAQ, "African American is primarily defined as 'citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa,' a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well." Self identification isn't meaningless, or they wouldn't ask you what yours is on virtual every application to...well, just about anywhere. Biographical articles aren't meant to stick to the strict literal detail of all scientific minutia. They're meant to give you an idea of the persons life, legacy and impact on the world. So, yes, self identification isn't meaningless, and it's up to consensus and logical reasoning to determine how to phrase it, or if it should even be included, in the article. Hence the reason why Elizabeth Warren's section on her Native American ancestry is being disputed. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Anybody can claim anything about themselves. It does not make it accurate. And Wikipedia should not be held to the views of non-experts, even if it is one talking about themselves. If self-identification is being relied upon here, why not list Obama as the first president to self-identify as African American? If you argue that "to self-identify" is the same as "to be", then please provide a reliable source to back up this assertion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Elizabeth Warren and Bill Clinton are apples to oranges examples. The former because she isn't really claiming such ancestry anymore, nor is anyone important claiming it on her behalf (and for the obvious reasons that caused that about-face); the latter because it was never anything more than a symbolic statement. Self-identification is sometimes meaningless, but not in the case of Obama. There is widespread precedent and cultural acceptance of black/white mixed race persons identifying however the heck they want to. Those historically who objected to such freedom are widely scorned today as racists: (cf. "if even so much as one drop of black blood flows in your veins, you're black" etc.) Wookian (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The point about Elizabeth Warren and Bill Clinton was used only to show the problem in using self and media-identification for racial determination. I will concede that point for discussion of the matter at hand. As in Obama's case, when additional information about a public figure is available, that additional information can be used to make accurate claims. Yes, the media identifies Obama as the "first black president", but in reality, his election and presidency is much more significant than that alone. He is, definitively, the first U.S. president with extensive non-European lineage, which the first Latino, Asian, etc. president can no longer match. In deferring to non-expert sources, Wikipedia does not fully grasp that significance here, unless it is correct that race is now more a state of mind than a description of lineage. If that can be proven, then I will agree with the current presentation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I agree that it's notable that Obama is the first US president with significant non-European lineage, assuming reliable sources are cited that similarly take note of this. But what change do you want to make to the article? I think changing President Obama's race in terms of the summary information is a non-starter, or it wouldn't be listed in the FAQ. Did you have something else in mind? Wookian (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Ideally, I'd like to see the second sentence in the first paragraph changed from "He is the first African American to hold the office." to "He is the first man with extensive non-European lineage to hold the office, and is identified as the 'first African American president'."--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a horse in this race, so will defer to other editors with stronger opinions. But why quotes around "first African American president"? That reads like it either calls that part into question, or is supposed to be a direct quote. Just curious what your intent is there. Wookian (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The quotes are not necessary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Barack Obama is an American of African ancestry. That makes him an African American, and that's why virtually 100% of reliable sources describe him as such. The "extensive non-European lineage" thing is nowhere near as significant, particularly as he also has European lineage through his mother. This discussion skirts remarkably close to the "Obama isn't black enough" crazy talk we've been hearing from some politicians and personalities since 2007, and we don't want to bring it back to this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Are the authors of any of these "reliable sources" experts on racial identification? If so, then a definitive statement is acceptable. However, the above comment has several logical flaws that I must point out: first, the world outside Europe is much larger than just Africa; second, the fact that Obama has European lineage has no bearing on the fact that he also has significant non-European lineage; third, political statements from 2007 are unrelated the discussion at hand.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I would assume (a bad habit) that saying he's the first president of significantly non-European heritage is at notable and interesting due to Eurocentrism and all that jazz, which would seem different from any kind of "he's not black enough" POV pushing. The best way to make a case for highlighting that in the article (if somebody really wants to) would be pointing to some reliable sources that discuss and capitalize on the president's significant non-European roots. It seems like that's where the serious conversation would really start; otherwise it's all just opinions and general discussion. Wookian (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(after ec) - First, I said statements since 2007, not from. Second, the whole point of using secondary reliable sources, and remember that we have literally thousands to choose from, is that we can assume they've done their due diligence and aren't telling a load of porky pies. Finally, this isn't an issue of racial identification. This is an issue of political and social significance. For America, having an African American president has more political and social significance than having an Asian president (for example), and the mainstream/political media are absolutely qualified to make that judgement because that is the role the fourth estate plays. Trust me when I say this isn't going to go anywhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(after ec) I agree with William that the fact that Obama is the first president of significantly non-Europrean lineage, in addition to being the first of significant African descent, is of historical significance and worthy of note in the article. I also agree with Wookian that reliable sources that "discuss and capitalize on" his non-European roots would be needed to highlight this in the article. Such sources certainly must exist, it is just a matter of finding them.--JayJasper (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
But the fact that such sources are hard to find is a clear indication the non-European lineage angle is nowhere near as significant. I would argue it probably falls foul of WP:UNDUE, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) "we can assume they've done their due diligence". Assume nothing. Any well-intentioned non-expert can make mistakes on accuracy. "having an African American president has more political and social significance than having an Asian president". I see no evidence for this statement. However, I'd like to see a source for this huge jump that the state of being African American is not about racial identification, but social identification. In the case a source cannot be found, I have already offered a remedy that accounts for social identification.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Even if we assume one source hasn't done its due diligence, we are talking about literally thousands. Tens of the thousands. Anyway, the lack of reliable sources for your "remedy" means it isn't going to happen. It would be a textbook example of undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Undue weight is currently being given to non-expert sources. I could easily come up with a source, but your mind is already made up and so you'll say: it's just one, two, or three sources. The problem is that your idea of sourcing is flawed because it assumes a reliable source for one thing is reliable for all things, which is false.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that referring to President Obama as "African American" is a flawed usage? Consider that we have Webster's defining "African American" as "An American of African and especially black African descent". This is mainstream English usage; what is wrong with it? That other culture or lineage specific usages exist doesn't really affect whether following this primary definition is acceptable, right? Wookian (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
In a literal sense, that definition perpetuates the "one drop" rule you refer to above and includes those with North African lineage. I understand what the definition is attempting to state, and I agree, but it is a flawed definition for a complex term and should not be used as the statement's basis. It is not flawed to say he is an African American, but because of the term's complexity, my suggestion is much more accurate. I am not suggesting this be used as a source or that I agree with it, but it directly addresses the issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I share the frustration of Ms. Arana (the WaPo editorialist you linked to) at the imperfect nature of mainstream conventions on race designations. But her editorial also acknowledges that "we use" this "dated language and logic". In other words, that is the mainstream status quo. Her title is obviously provocative. But the audience for this article are other media outlets and the culture at large. "We should change this" is very different from "this is how things are"; and Wikipedia needs the latter for RS's. Wookian (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Also referring to the previously mentioned Elizabeth Warren example did the vast majority of reliable sources call her an African American as well because if they did not the two situation cannot be compared. I also don't think that it should be our job to decided who is allowed to be called African African American so I would oppose the change. Also to address the original point calling Obama an African-American in no way whatsoever mean that someone is a birther--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I couldn't think of any rational explanation for that allegation. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no need to get off topic and readdress the comparison about Warren; I dropped that point. Furthermore, as I've repeated, sources reliable for one thing are not reliable for all things. Now, Wookian makes a good point, and at this time, I will agree with his logic, though I still believe my description is more accurate. I strongly object to those who feel this discussion should be censored. If anyone has anything to add to this discussion, they should be given the opportunity to do so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't be censored, and I'm sure that wasn't Seb az86556's intention. It's just that this has already been discussed ad nauseum, the answer is in the FAQs. and the title given to the section by the OP suggests a somewhat confused perspective unlikely to be improved by further discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is it so difficult to wait five days for the automatic archive? Do you realize that when you censor discussion on this page, it censors it in the archives as well. That is unacceptable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
IT'S NOT FUCKING CENSORSHIP!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Capitalizing does not make it so. The definition of censorship is to hide, and that is what is going on here. What I have proposed for this page has not been proposed before and so interested parties should have the ability to give their input and to read it without having to open a box.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Have we reached the right hand side of anyone's browser window yet?) HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
If there is consensus to archive this discussion then I will agree, but in no way should it be hidden from view.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This has been an interesting discussion, but once it became clear that it wasn't going to result in a change to the article there was really no reason to continue with it. I would support hatting. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
If you feel the discussion is interesting, why do you want to remove it from public view? That doesn't make sense. I don't know who started this hatting response, but it's a very poor way to deal with discussions. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't find it interesting in the slightest. It's a regurgitation of a topic that seems to arise here every three weeks or so, just long enough for the last discussion on the same matter to disappear off this page and into the archives. I would like to see a simple template we could use which would simply refer the person raising the topic to the relevant FAQ, and close the thread. HiLo48 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) - Has been an interesting discussion. Past tense. Now it's just going around in circles and getting nowhere. And hatting just signals the conversation has outlived its usefulness and is ready to be archived. It discourages people from perpetuating a go-nowhere discussion and preventing the bot from archiving it. And it will always be available (and searchable) in the archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not disagree that the discussion is over, but this particular suggestion has not been suggested before. As I've said, I can live with archiving, but I will oppose all efforts to censor, hat, or hide this discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested censoring anything. What nonsense is this? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The hatting reponse has its place, but I'd suggest not using it all the time, because it is admittedly a heavy handed, censorship-ish tool. William has made a serious suggestion, posted a thoughtful WaPo article to support his point, and generally argued in a courteous and intelligent manner. Consensus went the other way, but I suggest saving the hat for cases where there's a strong consensus that a particular thread has no possible benefit outside spreading inflammatory fringe nonsense. Otherwise, the proper response to a thread that doesn't interest you is not to participate in it. One needs to be cautious not to assert ownership of articles. If you're not actively participating, then don't get upset if the mood of consensus shifts based on the "fresh new faces" editing. That's not bad, it's exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work. My $.02. (Note: This is not specifically written to Scjessey or any other individual, just making general comments about hatting.) Wookian (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no suggestion of censorship with hatting. It is a tool we use when a thread has outlived its usefulness, which this one did many comments ago. It prevents a thread from being unnecessarily perpetuated with wasted discussion, as has happened here. It is particularly useful when dealing with one of the hot topics that appear in the FAQ because they are too-often brought up. William S. Saturn is an experienced editor who is not new to this article at all, and he is well aware of the hatting system operated here. The issue of non-European lineage is a fringe detail, barely touched on by mainstream media and not at all worthy of inclusion in this article per WP:WEIGHT. I have already said this, but the thread was pointlessly extended nonetheless. It's a textbook case of why hatting is needed. Now it is time for the thread to end. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Premature archiving of current discussions not resolved yet

I barely follow these discussions, so I take no opinion on the specific incident that lead to the discussion about hatting, but generally speaking, I find that discussions are hatted far more frequently on this talk page than any other on my watchlist, and no, this is not the only high-traffic Wikipedia article I follow.

When content disutes arise, it's often helpful to get more people involved in the discussion. Depending on what templates are used, hatting has the unfortunate effect of stopping or even hiding the discussion which can hurt the dispute resolution process.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hat reverted. This talk page is currently very short. Apparently there is simply not much going on here. Hatting this thread one day after it was created is an excessive and disproportionate response when somebody simply disagrees with another editor. Also, William's specific article change suggestion wasn't precisely addressed by the FAQ, so I don't think that's a reason for hatting. Scjessey, I suggest that you let the auto archive take its course. Avoid WP:OWN. Wookian (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Just an aside to answer Wookian. I did not hat the section - it wasn't, in fact, hatted at all. William closed the section himself, thus signalling the end of the discussion and preparing it for archive. So you owe me an apology for wrongly accusing me of hatting and wrongly accusing me of OWNing. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for drawing my attention to that, Scjessey. I reviewed the history and see that it wasn't a hat I reverted, but an archive which William added himself. I apologize for spreading confusion and pointing at you personally above. Wookian (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That's the nature of this article. Stop the conversation before consensus can change. No worries though, it appears that there wasn't going to be any "consensus" changes from that thread anyway. JOJ Hutton 02:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The "nature of this article" is for readers who wish to learn about Barack Obama to have verified, reliably sourced information. Not discuss on the Talk page ad nauseum about non-issues that have been discussed in over 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32 different threads, with thousands of posts in 3+ years and with FAQ page questions dedicated to the obvious answers. Unless reliable sources overwhelmingly, all of a sudden, start stating Obama is not the first AA President, Obama renounces being self identified as an AA, the descriptor will not change. That should be obvious to any thinking person that knows Wikipedia guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not one to argue that every person will always agree with everyone else on what is and is not the correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy or what should and should not go into an article based on that same interpretation of policy, but I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of "Thinking people who know Wikipedia guidelines" that are allowed to disagree with you. Or is one side of an argument always the smart side and the other side is always the dumb side? Enough said!!
And if things continue to be discussed (I'd say dismissed), "ad nauseum", then perhaps there are still issues that need to be discussed, rather than dismissed.--JOJ Hutton 03:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
"Concerns" raised by single-purpose accounts, socks, and IPs do not need to be discussed. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
And is every person a SPA, sock, or ip? Yet "ip" is very interesting. Is it that any person not wishing to edit with an account, automatically not worthy to edit this talk page? Not sure there is a policy against that. Don't get me wrong though, I'm fully in support of people creating accounts to edit, my only concern there is that you are automatically biased against anyone not editing under the terms that you are setting forth. Should we amend the policies so that only auto confirmed editors can edit this talk page?--JOJ Hutton 04:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to have this discussion again now. Politely point the editor to the FAQ and move on. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I think thats the point of the thread, everything is always dismissed. No longer discussed. Evidence apparent.--JOJ Hutton 11:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have something to say, please say it (for example, make a specific proposal). It is not helpful to raise objections that have no reasonable resolution. The collapsed section above is nearly 20K bytes, and it suggests that the article should ignore the vast majority of reliable sources that report Obama as "African American". Are you suggesting that there would be some benefit to the encyclopedia from continuing such discussions on this talk page? Are you suggesting there is a reason to not use "African American" in the article? Johnuniq (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There are some issues that can be revisited over time, say a particular controversy or other event, to discuss wither sources treat the event in a more in-depth manner that may now warrant coverage. But I'm pretty sure that Obama is just as much of an African-American today as he was in 2008, and that there hasn't been a sea-change in usage of the term in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes I believe the proposal is "stop closing threads, stop dismissing every question, and in general stop running everyone off and claiming they are a sock puppet.--JOJ Hutton 12:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Joj. I am not comfortable with shutting down a (non-troll etc.) thread after only 1 day or so. It would be possible under such a scheme for a few editors with quick reflexes to maintain an appearance of consensus, but really merely be guilty of "owning" the article by quickly shutting down conversations. Wookian (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Owning rarely happens on articles like this that have so many regular editors. It is more common on low-trafficked articles where one editor may have made a very significant contribution. It does no good to bandy around claims of ownership here. The activity you are seeing is more like patrolling. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Is that a thing? :) While admitting that I am new here, it strikes me that patrolling and responding quickly to changes is desirable on the article itself, particularly a high profile article such as this one that is subject to vandalism. However, the talk page should be different. Wookian (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not suitable places for shooting the breeze on topics of interest, per WP:NOTFORUM. Lots of people watch high profile pages like this and do not want to spend their time reading unproductive chatter. It's pretty simple: a new editor suggests Obama should not be described as African American; someone very politely points them to the FAQ and explains that we follow reliable sources; after that, further chat is disruptive. Re sock puppets: yes, we need to welcome new users, but it is known that socks troll here, yet the word "sock" does not appear in the collapsed section. William S. Saturn needs to take his concerns to a suitable noticeboard and ask whether it would be suitable for editors to ignore reliable sources and instead decide on what words accurately describe Obama's heritage—pursuing such a non-starter here is unproductive. There should no further suggestions about how to classify someone's "race" without a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

first president to openly support

We have the qualifier "openly" in the intro (and "publicly" in the body) when we describe Obama as the first president who has spoken out in support of same sex marriage. One editor removed "openly" saying "why 'openly' support? unless we have reliable sources that state that other sitting POTUSs 'secretly' suported it, the qualifier seems unnecessary which I reverted, saying "no - the point is that we don't know what other presidents privately supported - this is 1st prez to openly support". The word was removed again by another editor saying "Unless we are pretending that George W. Bush secretly supported SSM, this extra word is unnecessary". George W. Bush is not the only previous President, and we do not actually know what any previous president might have supported in private. The only thing we do know for sure is that Obama is the first to come out and say he supports in public, so I think we should say so. The word may not strictly be necessary, but the clarification is useful and no valid reason for removing it has been given, as far as I can see. Is there something else going on here? Any thoughts? Tvoz/talk 06:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If you allow that the word isn't necessary, you've just made a convincing case for its removal. And it isn't necessary, unless we have verifiable evidence that some previous president privately supported SSM. Keeping it implies that we know something that we aren't telling, which isn't very encyclopedic. I'm sure there are SSM supporters who would love to hint that every president since Washington has secretly pined for the day when they could proudly announce their support, but without verifiable evidence of that, we shouldn't make such an insinuation. Shorter version: it's POV cruft, and it should go. Belchfire-TALK 06:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't ascribe motives here. It's a matter of how you hear it - to me, saying Obama is the first to support is making a statement that you have no evidence for; to you saying he is the first to openly support suggests that others privately supported - I don't hear it that way. But since you were one of the editors who reverted the word again rather than bringing it here, how about we hear from some others. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Because we do not know if previous presidents may have supported same-sex marriage, but not openly, I think the qualifier is logical; however, neither reliable source we use in the body of the article uses the word. What struck me as interesting about this is that not only did Obama's feelings about the issue evolve over time, but they did so very publicly and openly. So on balance, I think using "openly" makes a lot of sense to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's just splitting hairs to say "Openly support", but theres no reason not to say it either. I don't think it changes the meaning either way.--JOJ Hutton 13:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That we "do not know if previous presidents may have supported same-sex marriage" is negative logic. Unless we know of one who privately supported it, there is absolutely no reason to include a qualifier. As it stands now, Obama is the first to support it. In fact, I think the current inclusion of "openly" falls afoul of WP:WEASEL, as it subtly implies something we should not be stating, that other presidents may have privately supported same-sex marriage. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
But the reverse could also be true. Previous sitting presidents may have supported same-sex marriage, but not openly. By not saying "openly" we may actually be claiming something that isn't true. When you think of it that way, using "openly" is the safe solution to the logical conundrum. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Your scenario states information not even implied in our sources. Nothing suggests or implies anyone else supporting. This is essentially playing into original research. We have nothing stating even the possibility of another president having support, privately or otherwise. It isn't our place to open the door to speculation, but to state the facts in the reliable sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Or, to put it another way, to state the verifiable facts. How can you verifiably support your implication? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that "support same-sex marriage" is often preceded by "openly" in a sentence. It's a common convention. To answer your question about verifiability, sources do exist for "openly". Even Fox News! So if we add one of these sources, or change one of the existing sources, we can safely use the word. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

First, IMO "openly" is a very poor word choice. Openly and publicly are two totally different things. He (or any previous president) could have "openly" expressed support for SSM at a private gathering - such as during dinner with family or friends - but that is not the same as publicly, which is saying it in his official capacity as president for the entire world to hear. So if either word must be used, it should definitely be publicly and not openly. As a factual matter, Obama IS the first sitting president to publicly support legalizing SSM. Everyone knows this. Now, was he the first POTUS to support it privately? No one knows. But it doesn't matter because our job is to write only what is known for sure. The bottom line is that Obama is the first to say it out loud; to make a public proclamation in his official capacity as POTUS. If it were up to me, the sentence would be "In May 2012, he became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly state his support for legalizing same-sex marriage." It states the whole, accurate truth and has no implications whatsoever. Hope this helps. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear on one point, I feel it would be extremely inappropriate to simply say that Obama is the "first sitting president to support legalizing same-sex marriage." We don't have any idea whether or not any previous president privately supported SSM. For all we know, Bush 43 or Clinton or Bush 41 or Reagan or Carter or Ford or Nixon or LBJ or JFK or any others may have supported it, privately. So to say that Obama is the first would be very wrong; it would be a claim that would be absolutely impossible to prove or source. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. And while I think "openly" is fine, I have no problem with either changing the citation as Scjessey suggests and/or changing "openly" to "publicly" in the intro - it already was "publicly" in the body. Tvoz/talk 05:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I totally agree with the gist of all your comments on this issue. The only part we differ on a bit is the use of the word "openly." Although some media have used the term, I believe for an encylopedia it is a very inappropriate description (for my reasons stated above). Those media sources are incorrectly using "openly" as a synonym of "publicly." But they are not synonomous. I believe the key word that needs to be in the sentence is "stated"; the fact that Obama made a (public) statement about his support for legalizing SSM. Because that's exactly what he did; he stated something (supporting legalizng SSM), which no other president had ever stated. So, was he the "first to openly support SSM"? We don't know; maybe another president openly supported it to people, but in private. Was he the "first to support SSM"? Again, who knows? We have no idea. Is he the "first to publicly state he supports legalizing SSM"? YES, absolutely. We know this to be a fact. Therefore, that's the only description that tells exactly what is known as an unquestionable fact. So, yes, you and I are basically on the exact same page, other than the issue with the word "openly." So again, I offer my suggestion of: "In May 2012, he became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly state his support for legalizing same-sex marriage." As an alternative, I would also be fine with: "In May 2012, he became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly support legalizing same-sex marriage." But I think the first version is the most complete and accurate way to say it. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm really not seeing the need for any qualifiers such as "openly" or "publicly", as it implies facts not in evidence regarding presidents past. Just say "the first president to support..." and leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are just simply wrong. That Obama is the first president to "publicly" state his support on the issue IS indeed a fact in evidence. Are you saying that he did not publicly state his support for legalizing SSM? Are you saying that there was a previous president who publicly stated his support for the issue? It is actually your preferred version that cannot possibly be proven as factual. How do you know that Obama is "the first president to support" legalizing SSM?? You don't. No one does. Maybe Clinton supported it, but just never said it publicly. All we know for sure is that Obama is the first to publicly state his support for the issue. Name one thing that is untrue about that claim. P.S. The photo of your dog is cool. :) --76.189.110.167 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How tall is Obama?

How tall is Obama? --91.6.73.196 (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

See Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States.--JayJasper (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama's mother has proven African ancestry

I added a reference to Obama's mother's proven African ancestry, which has been deleted. The confusion here is that it is NOT proven that Obama's Bunch ancestors were descended from John Punch, the so-called "first slave in Virginia." However, it has definitely been proven, by DNA testing, that the male progenitor of Obama's Bunch ancestors was of African ancestry. I earlier posted a link discussing the DNA testing in a section that recently got "fast-track" archived.--Other Choices (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What this mostly displays to me is a far too intense obsession with race. Is it really that big an issue? HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it has definitely been proven, by DNA testing, that we all have African ancestry. Which secondary sources writing about the subject of this article have displayed a significant interest in Obama's distant ancestors? Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
@HiLo48, the article currently reads that Obama's mother was "of mostly English ancestry, along with Scottish, Irish, German, and Swiss." I wanted to add "African" to the list. Should we delete all the others? If not, why not? Why is Obama's mother's Swiss ancestry more noteworthy than her African ancestry? It seems to me that selectively NOT mentioning her African ancestry opens wikipedia editors to the charge of racial bias.
@Johnuniq, your statement about DNA testing distorts the nature of the science involved. The Y Chromosone of Bunch family males goes directly back to sub-Saharan Africa. Regarding your question about which secondary sources have displayed a significant interest in Obama's distant ancestors, the article currently gives five footnotes -- one for each listed ethnic variant of Obama's mother's ancestry. If you want a secondary source that gives a comprehensive listing of Obama's ancestors for six generations, see here. The ancestry of American presidents is always of general interest -- there are countless books, articles, and web pages on the subject. Just google the phrase, "ancestors of U.S. presidents" and you'll see what I mean.
If you want secondary sources that express an interest in Obama's African ancestry on his mother's side, try here with the quote, "There was DNA evidence showing that the Bunches had sub-Saharan African heritage." The source that broke the story is here, with the quote, "Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, has ancestors among the first African-American settlers of Colonial Virginia." And here's another one: "Elizabeth Shown Mills, an expert in Southern genealogy, endorsed Ancestry.com’s conclusion, which was reached using records and DNA analysis." And one more here, with its reference to "DNA evidence showing today's Bunches have sub-Saharan African heritage."--Other Choices (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
We're talking about the family tree having a single black man in it in 1640. I think that is a bit of a time stretch to declare "of African ancestry" for the Dunham family. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
If you read the citations for Obama's ancestry that are already included in the article, we're talking about a single German man from 1729, a single Swiss man from 1690, and a single Scottish man from even earlier, 1607. What's the difference (other than skin color)? Do you think those other references should be removed? If not, why not? If so, why didn't it bother you until now?--Other Choices (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The common American obsession with skin colour and race has bothered me for a very long time. Most references to such things don't belong in a quality encyclopaedia. It's OK to mention the self declared ancestry of an individual, but digging to find obscure racial facts about a person, often with political motives in mind, is quite inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Huh? You seem to be projecting your self-admitted racial concerns onto the discussion of Obama's ancestry. Your phrase "digging to find obscure racial facts about a person" is pure POV. Genealogists dig to see what they might find, and they love interesting stories, and they're a considerable, well-educated part of the population (which means likely to check wikipedia articles), and they're generally curious about both their own ancestral ethnic composition and that of American presidents -- especially by the question, "is he related to me?" Every time there's a new president, his ancestry gets exhaustively researched, because a lot of people are interested. With the Bunch family connection's proven African link, for the first time African-Americans of old southern ancestry can imagine the possibility that they (and not just white Americans) are related to the President.--Other Choices (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make the assertion notable. It's a bit of trivia that Obama's mother never knew, that no-one at suspected until recently, and that therefore has nothing to do with the behavior or beliefs of the subject of this article. That it may be of interest to some people does not make it one of the 50 or 100 most important things to know about Obama. This article is not Every Detail About The Ancestry Of Barack Obama. rewinn (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Notability does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. Just thought I should mention that. Carry on.Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, the applicable guidance here is not WP:NOTABILITY, but WP:WEIGHT. How much space in the article (if any) does this deserve with reference to what is notable in the subject's life? Probably not more than a footnote, but that's just my opinion. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

@Rewinn, your points also apply to Obama's mother's Swiss and Scottish ancestry. Why should those get mentioned and not her African ancestry? Perhaps you will be willing to answer this question.
@Wilhelm Meis, I agree, just a footnote. I added exactly one word ("African"), with a footnote, to the existing list of ethnic origins of Ann Dunham. My edit got first modified (inaccurately) and then deleted. What disturbs me about this situation is the apparent double standard, together with the "racial issue" that two editors are inclined to make of this point.--Other Choices (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The relationship is far removed, the matter has received little mainstream media coverage (it was a thing for a day) and it isn't at all significant in a biography of Obama's entire life. Most of this ancestry crap can safely be removed and folded (where appropriate) into Family of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I see... as soon as it becomes obvious that there is no logical reason to exclude "African" from the list, you want to remove the whole list. Whether intentional or not, your approach gives the impression of racial bias -- it reminds me of the southern restaurant back in the 1960s that decided to close its doors instead of desegregating and serving black people.--Other Choices (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Other Choices is right. Either add African to the list, or remove it entirely. If there was not a problem with the list being there before African was added, why is it an issue now? AutomaticStrikeout 02:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been very involved in this article in the pats, but it's been on my watchlist for years and I just wanted to point out that I fully support either adding African to the list or removing all minor components of the list entirely. It's an absurd double-standard to list one single-individual ancestry trait and not another. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree; if Other Choices is correct and Obama's maternal ancestry, going back hundreds of years, is entirely English except for a German man from 1729, a Swiss man from 1690, and a Scotsman man from 1607 (assuming that this is true) then describing it as just "predominantly English" or somesuch would be in order, I'd say. Herostratus (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@Other Choices - I've never been in favor of all the ancestry crap, particularly the category creep aspect of it. We have an article, Family of Barack Obama, where this stuff could conceivably belong. I know Republicans like to talk about Obama's ancestry to make him sound "exotic" and unusual. Your response to my previous comment above sounds awfully like you are accusing me of being a racist. I expect your next comment to confirm it was not your intention to make me sound like a racist. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment- Although an interesting tidbit, why is it important enough to include into his article here? I don't think it is. One reason is because the term used to describe the connection are “strongly suggests”. Obama is already listed as an African American, so why would it be important to include this tidbit here? I also do quite a bit if genealogical research with ancestry.com, and find the sources and records fascinating. But the years of research also allows me to understand that there is a lot of guess work involved once one delves into older records. Especially in middle America in the early 1800's. So I think this fails inclusion on several levels. Thanks Dave Dial (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Completely irrelevant. Did Obama's mother know this? Was that side of his family ever treated the way blacks are treated? Did they have anything to do with either Africa or the slave-experience? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Include. I am in favour of adding this bit of info, which was reported in hundreds of publications around the world. [36] It's worth a sentence, and the New York Times is available as a source. JN466 12:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Jayen's point makes sense, as does Other Sources (if we include ancestry in this article, we include this). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hard to imagine we're even considering this, it's a piece of trivia and clearly not relevant to the life and times of Obama. For anyone who hasn't been around much, the ancestry trivia game makes for flow news day fodder but not good encyclopedic articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude - First, I urge WP:AGF and not commenting on editors' motives. Second, it seems a valuable exercise to figure out why one possible 17th-century ancestor has less WP:WEIGHT than another; I think the key distinction is that DNA ancestry and cultural ancestry are different things. All evidence is that Dunham knew nothing of possible African ancestry, and thought of herself as being of Euro ancestry only. Within that Euro ancestry she apparently understood Scots and whatnot; that is the cultural heritage she passed on to the subject of this article, and not that implied by her DNA. Third, why mention Scot if her Scot ancestor left Scotland before her possible African ancestor left Africa? The answer is that she evidently knew of the Scot heritage, but not the African heritage. Fourth, to the argument that the Scot/Germain/English/African details of who-lived-where in the 17th century has very little WP:WEIGHT, I must agree, on the grounds that the subject of this article doesn't seem to have been much affected by whether his mother had Scots ancestry vs. that of any other nation, but only Euro vs. African. It is all the more telling that on that latter point he and we all may have been in ignorance. Unless there's evidence that the subject of this article did or felt something significant about ancestry that far back, "mostly English" would seem to be more than enough detail. rewinn (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To put this issue to rest (hopefully), I am going to endorse Rewinn's suggestion that we cut the ancestry sentence back to "mostly English," and I'm going to endorse Scjessey's earlier suggestion that the remaining ancestry stuff (with several footnotes that I think are interesting) be moved to the Family of Barack Obama article, together with the African reference. @Scjessey, it was definitely not my intention to make you sound like a racist. Rather, it was my intention to bring to the attention of all wikipedia editors that discussion of this issue had strayed into a racially-charged danger zone. I hope you can just chalk it up to experience that, basically, you stepped on a "politically correct" landmine. Another editor did something similar earlier in the discussion. I have no reason to doubt that all of the editors currently active on this page tend to be respectful toward the U.S. presidency in general and President Obama in particular. But sometimes sincerely-meant remarks can come across in a very different light, depending on the context and the audience.--Other Choices (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I also endorse Rewinn's suggestion of "mostly English" which is more than sufficient for this article, as well as Scjessey's suggestion that the more elaborate ancestry details be moved to Family of Barack Obama (African reference included).--JayJasper (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support cutting back, and I was going to just make the edit per apparent consensus here, but it has to be done correctly and I got a bit nervous about the reference. The text reads "...and was of mostly English ancestry,[7]" but ref 7 just says "for Stanley Ann's first name, see Obama (1995, 2004), p. 19." which is referring to Dreams from My Father. Has anyone got the book handy—what does page 19 verify? What page verifies "mostly English"? While it's pretty obvious, I don't see a reliable source for "mostly English" here or at Ann Dunham. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I'm working from an unnumbered pdf file, but searching for England and English, the only relevant hit occurs on the 11th converted page (for comparison, the comment about his mother being named Stanley because her father wanted a son is on the 15th converted page):

Sure-but would you let your daughter marry one?

The fact that my grandparents had answered yes to this question, no matter how grudgingly, remains an enduring puzzle to me. There was nothing in their background to predict such a response, no New England transcendentalists or wild-eyed socialists in their family tree. True, Kansas had fought on the Union side of the Civil War; Gramps liked to remind me that various strands of the family contained ardent abolitionists. If asked, Toot would turn her head in profile to show off her beaked nose, which, along with a pair of jet-black eyes, was offered as proof of Cherokee blood. But an old, sepia-toned photograph on the bookshelf spoke most eloquently of their roots. It showed Toot’s grandparents, of Scottish and English stock, standing in front of a ramshackle homestead, unsmiling and dressed in coarse wool, their eyes squinting at the sun-baked, flinty life that stretched out before them. Theirs were the faces of American Gothic, the WASP bloodline’s poorer cousins, and in their eyes one could see truths that I would have to learn later as facts: that Kansas had entered the Union free only after a violent precursor to the Civil War, the battle in which John Brown’s sword tasted first blood; that while one of my great-great-grandfathers, Christopher Columbus Clark, had been a decorated Union soldier, his wife’s mother was rumored to have been a second cousin of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy; that although another distant ancestor had indeed been a full-blooded Cherokee, such lineage was a source of considerable shame to Toot’s mother, who blanched whenever someone mentioned the subject and hoped to carry the secret to her grave.

Don't know if this helps at all though. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Another possibility is to mention his mother's putative African ancestor under Barack_Obama#Family_and_personal_life, which already contains a wide-ranging discussion. Given how widely this item was publicised, readers would expect a mention of it somewhere in the article. At any rate, right now we still have the German and Swiss ancestors mentioned ... --JN466 14:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we really need to do the ethnicity/nationality/race/skin colour/whatever else, then all should be included. However, I find those descriptions as nothing more than an irrelevant and unnecessary irritant in any article that has them -- especially for bios of people born and raised in the US. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Describing mother and father

It looks like there is agreement to cut back the description of Obama's mother, and put the details in her article. I can see why people would want to mention Obama's African ancestry from his mother's side, but I think that should be discussed as a separate issue (no one really cares if his mother had a single African ancestor from 1640, so whether it is DUE to mention the conclusion regarding Obama is another question). I'm having trouble deciding what the text should be, and am thinking it would be a lot easier to discuss some proposals here rather than discuss-by-edit-summary while editing the very complex and slow wikitext in the article.

I don't see any good reference regarding "mostly English" (although the image in her article makes that a reasonable conclusion). However the mother was born in the US to parents who were born in the US, so "American" seems a more reasonable description—does the issue of her ultimate ancestry warrant consideration in this article?. One problem with wording is to achieve a balance between what is said about each parent. Could it all be cut back to just "American" and "African" (with details in the linked articles)?

I also suggest removing "Stanley" from the text—that's not even in the title of the article, and I don't see a suggestion that the issue is of any relevance to Obama. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the quote that Fat&Happy provided, Ann Dunham was of mostly Scottish and English ancestry (the quote implied Native American ancestry, too). We could use that reference, and in the footnote simply mention that other details of Obama's ancestry are in the Family of Barack Obama article.
However, I'm inclined to disagree with those who think this is "trivial" -- I think it's archetypal, and would support a specific mention of Obama's African-American ancestry in this article if other editors agree and if it's possible to mention in a fragment of a sentence. The problem with simply saying "American" ancestry is that it just isn't done in biographical sketches, and it's the type of thing that gets some Native Americans up in arms. I hope I'm not going too far with the whole "politically correct" thing, but my understanding is that cultural sensitivity is an important goal for wikipedia editors. And also, many people are interested in ethnic origins -- McKinley was Scottish, Kennedy was Irish, Eisenhower was German, etc. I agree on removing the word "Stanley" from the text.--Other Choices (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Other Choices about this being archetypical rather than trivial. Cf. commentaries like these: "The researcher's conclusions are not ironclad. But even if Obama turns out not to be related to Punch -- which is highly unlikely -- researchers have established beyond doubt that Dunham's family has black ancestry that almost certainly can be traced back to American slaves. Which means that Obama is more black than we imagined. A familiar kind of black."[37][38] That is why it was reported all over the world. Here for example dozens of reports in the German-language press: [39] We'll just look silly if we don't mention it. JN466 13:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, but I was hoping for concrete proposals as the wording escapes me, and it's too tedious to go back-and-forth with edit/revert in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems unlikely there is going to be any consensus to include the material at all because of weight / trivia and relevancy concerns. A number of editors are staunchly opposed to adding any "gee whiz" ancestry stuff. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How about just trimming the two descriptions for now (I can't think of a good way to mention Obama's African ancestry from his mother's side), like this:

Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at Kapiʻolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (now Kapiʻolani Medical Center for Women and Children) in Honolulu, Hawaii,[1][2][3] and is the first President to have been born in Hawaii.[4] His mother, Ann Dunham, was born in Wichita, Kansas, and was of mostly English ancestry.[5] His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Kenya.

I am using ref[1] here so it shows up in the reflist below.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b "Certificate of Live Birth: Barack Hussein Obama II, August 4, 1961, 7:24 pm, Honolulu" (PDF). Department of Health, State of Hawaii. The White House. April 27, 2011. Retrieved April 27, 2011.
  2. ^ Maraniss, David (August 24, 2008). "Though Obama had to leave to find himself, it is Hawaii that made his rise possible". The Washington Post. p. A22. Retrieved October 28, 2008.
  3. ^ Nakaso, Dan (December 22, 2008). "Twin sisters, Obama on parallel paths for years". The Honolulu Advertiser. p. B1. Retrieved January 22, 2011.
  4. ^ Rudin, Ken (December 23, 2009). "Today's Junkie segment On TOTN: a political review Of 2009". Talk of the Nation (Political Junkie blog). NPR. Retrieved April 18, 2010. We began with the historic inauguration on January 20—yes, the first president ever born in Hawaii
  5. ^ Obama (1995, 2004), p. 12.

The text "It showed Toot’s grandparents, of Scottish and English stock..." is on page 12 in a paperback edition of Dreams, but it refers only to Ann Dunham's mother and is not exactly "mostly English". Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Much better. What does it say instead of mostly English? Lighthead þ 04:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It says what is in my "...Scottish and English..." quote (searching for that text on this page shows a larger extract given earlier). Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo

Please add

to the External Links section!--217.230.239.244 (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:ELNO.--JayJasper (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If you see other examples of that edit in your travels, please note them here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 28 August 2012

In the section on his religious belief it might help to understand something of how2 his religious beliefs influence his policies by noting that he is an avid reader of Reinhold Niebuhr, whom he has quoted more often than his predicessors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.58.145 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We need reliable sources that support this claim, and they would need to be in sufficient number and scope to make it pass the WP:WEIGHT test in order to make it into this already-very-long article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Deficits

I am going to be away from this article for a couple of weeks. I started a section on this. I believe something along these lines should be included. If it is going to go into the article soon, someone else will need to carry the ball from here. I believe there should also be a graph, similar to what there is for the Clinton surpluses in the Bill Clinton article. William Jockusch (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Budget Deficits

The U.S. Federal Deficit topped $1 trillion in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 fiscal years. Press reports indicate that it is expected to do so again in 2012.[1] The budget or deficits have been described as "unsustainable" by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner,[2] Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke,[3] and by a group of 10 ex-chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisors.[4]

References

  1. ^ "U.S. budget deficit totals $974B through July".
  2. ^ Trumbull, Mark. "Obama national debt plan: Will it all come down to taxes?".
  3. ^ Schroeder, Peter. "Bernanke asks Congress to get serious about 'unsustainable' fiscal path". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=, |2=, and |3= (help)
  4. ^ "Unsustainable budget threatens nation". {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

William Jockusch (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I slightly refactored the above to make it clearer that it is text proposed by William Jockusch. The deficit is a major concern, but there would need to be good sources showing the relationship between the person (the subject of this article) and the deficits. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the point of this proposal is. The budget deficit reflects the ratio between revenues and spending and Congress controls both of those, not Obama. Newt Gingrich, for example, claimed the balanced budget of the Clinton era was because of the Republican-controlled Congress of the time. This really has nothing to do with Obama's biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the budget deficits are controlled by Congress, so they are not directly relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama (though obliquely relevant because this has been a problem he has had to address), but totally irrelevant to the biography of the person. I see no need to discuss budget deficits at this article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Deficits are mentiomed the biographies of G W Bush, Clinton, G H W Bush and Ronald Reagan to various degrees. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
So? What happens in other articles is a matter for them. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
And I would think for NPOV to be true in the purest sense, we should be consistent, regardless of political opinion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a long-standing understanding that (translated to the terminology of the current issue), whether article X discusses deficits is not relevant when considering if article Y should discuss deficits (perhaps X is wrong, or perhaps there are particular reasons, or whatever; see WP:OSE). The bottom line is that whether deficits should be mentioned here depends on policies (such as WP:DUE) considered for this article, without any concern about what other articles have. Anyone wanting the deficits material here needs to engage with the comments above (such as "deficits are controlled by Congress, so they are not directly relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama (though obliquely relevant because this has been a problem he has had to address), but totally irrelevant to the biography" from Wilhelm Meis). Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Even if the deficit was directly related to Obama, this being a summary style article (unlike the others mentioned) it would need to pass the very strictest interpretations of WP:WEIGHT and WP:REL to make it in. While the deficit is tangentially related to the activities of presidents (they can express a desire to lower or raise it), it is strictly controlled by the legislative branch. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The deficits are relevant to Obama for two reasons: First, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. [40]. Second and more importantly, if a problem threatens the nation, as pretty much everyone seems to agree that this one does, the President has a responsibility to lead the nation to find a solution to the problem. -- William Jockusch, not signed in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.146.7 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The question isn't whether the deficits are relevant to Obama. It's whether they're relevant to his biography. The text above as proposed doesn't mention Obama's relation to it at all. In any case, in relation to the whole of his biography, his role (or lack thereof) in the federal deficit is quite small and shouldn't be given undue weight. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems like the discussion should focus on whether the reliable sources tie the budget deficits to Obama. How much control the president wields over such things (campaign promises, policy proposal, and veto power versus the fact that Congress writes the laws) seems beyond the scope of a Talk discussion unless we let the sources speak for themselves. What do you guys think? Wookian (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it's clear the deficit is not the responsibility of the president, but of Congress. This discussion needs to move to other articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
That is your opinion, but others obviously disagree. If Obama promised to reduce the deficit then presumably he also is among those who disagree with your opinion. And if he campaigned on a promise of reducing the deficit, then success or failure of that initiative seems noteworthy in relation to his biography[41]. Wookian (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is a bit surreal. Are we seriously suggesting that there are no reliable sources which connect Obama with the budget? Or that Obama has never signed (or vetoed) a bill regarding the budget? Who would have thunk that chief executive of a country has absolutely nothing to do with that country's government's spending?


BTW, I take no opinion about this particular section. Maybe it's appropriate; maybe it's not. But the assertion that Obama has nothing to do with the budget is...well...ridiculous. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Executive branch sets the agenda, but it is the Legislative branch that writes the laws and controls the supply of money. I'm not saying the president isn't tangentially involved in the budget, but that role is far less significant than the role of Congress. And in terms of a biography of Barack Obama, it is most certainly not significant enough to be worthy of text in this article. Perhaps in Political positions of Barack Obama and Economic policy of Barack Obama, but not here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see what the issue is. Like any matter of federal legislation, Congress passes and the administration signs or vetoes and then implements. The President has a lot of leverage, and in the case of budgets he usually makes proposals for Congress to act on (e.g. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget). Thus, the press and the public associate the President with the budget process, and consider it one of the primary job functions. The Presidency is the most significant fact of Obama's life, and the budget (and its deficit) is one of the most significant issues of the Presidency, it seems pretty obvious that this should be mentioned. Like everything else about the office it's subject to politicization: competing agendas, and finger-pointing when there is a bad result. The politics of the matter, if important, are part of the story, and we can present that objectively, from a neutral point of view. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Anybody with graphic design talents want to take a shot at a graph for this? See the Clinton article for the kind of thing that I think would make sense. -- William Jockusch, not logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.146.7 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama page vs. Romney page

I find this page to be fairly neutral, but there are a few bits that surprise me. The inclusion of his drug use, the reference of a group of his friends as the "choom gang" and a few other things. I don't think those elements should be removed (even though they're from his youth) - because they're part of history and are significant. What puzzles me, though, is that Romney's page has no inclusion of Romney's youthful indiscretions - e.g. the hair cutting incident/other pranks. What's the standard for inclusion on these types of things? How does youthful drug use and being part of "the choom gang" qualify as relevant for inclusion but Romney's hair cutting incident/other pranks doesn't qualify? Someone suggested that it was because Obama wrote about his indiscretions, and Romney didn't. That seems like an arbitrary rationale. Anyone else confused by this lack of alignment between the pages? Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The standard is proper weighting. The amount writing a particular fact should receive in a given article is a judgment call that is arrived at via consensus. That's why it's usually not a good idea to compare articles, especially BLPs. Just because a given type of fact is mentioned in an article doesn't mean that same type of fact must be mentioned in a similar article and vice-versa. SMP0328. (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that.Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Citation 271 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/americas/06iht-poll.4.19983290.html?_r=1

The information in the source does not support the information in the wikipedia article. The poll only included responders from Western Europe and United States. This cannot be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Second attempt

No it is not done. There has been no change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to either rephrase your request or reread the current version of the article. The NYT article you link is currently [20:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)] used at citation 268, not 271. The text supported by citation 268 was changed to accurately reflect the target response group of the poll here and here. What further specific change do you feel is needed? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Setdigger's reasoning was incorrect, but I must agree with his last edit. The lead is long and includes more than is needed. We have a whole article to use, let's not try to cram it all in the lead. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So you removed everything about his actual Presidency from the lead?! That stuff's kind of important. Reverting you.—indopug (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Indopug's reversion to the stable text was correct - the 4 paragraph lead is not too long, given the subject, and it summarizes the article appropriately. See WP:LEAD: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Leaving off the Presidency is of course absurd - and there really is nothing that should be cut from the lead. Tvoz/talk 03:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012

Please change barack obama is the first african american president. Please change this to Barack Obama is the first biracial president because he is not fully african american, his father was african american while his mother was caucasian. Therefore becoming the first biracial president. Kellyann1700 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Declined. See FAQ Question #2 at the top of this page. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to point out that his father was not "Afican-American". That is a US centric term, used for only Americans, not non Americans. JOJ Hutton 21:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
And I suspect that "fully African American" is a tricky concept too. I believe that many self proclaimed African American folks would find a white slave owner's genes somewhere back in their ancestry. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that "self proclaimed" is an appropriate term, when for the most part Blacks are labelled as such by society (and, for a long time, by the legal system - see one drop rule). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Fair point. I'll just emphasise that the whole situation is not as simple as some folks wish it was. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deficits, take 2

Added some info about the connection to Obama. I have to say I'm not 100% happy with this version -- feels like a bit more of a transition is needed between the proposals and the outcome. -- William Jockusch, not logged in.

Seriously non-neutral, William. First of all, the federal budget is controlled by Congress and so this is the wrong article. Secondly, the next budget deficit (set this year) is projected to be $901 billion. That is only 60% of the 2009 deficit of $1,413 billion. 60% isn't 50%, but it's pretty damn close. Thirdly, you've used not-neutral language to present this as an "ah ha!" moment, with words like "however" - which is also an act of synthesis because you are editorializing. Please stop trying to impose your POV on this article. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not 100% happy with that version, particularly with the transition. Care to offer any helpful suggestions? -- William Jockusch, not logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.146.7 (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Budget Deficits

In 2009, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.[1] In 2011, Obama proposed a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts to address the problem.[2] However, the U.S. Federal Deficit topped $1 trillion in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 fiscal years. Press reports indicate that it is expected to do so again in 2012.[3] The budget or deficits have been described as "unsustainable" by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner,[4] Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke,[5] and by a group of 10 ex-chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisors.[6]

References

  1. ^ Phillips, Macon. "Owning up to what we owe".
  2. ^ "Obama Stokes Deficit Fight".
  3. ^ "U.S. budget deficit totals $974B through July".
  4. ^ Trumbull, Mark. "Obama national debt plan: Will it all come down to taxes?".
  5. ^ Schroeder, Peter. "Bernanke asks Congress to get serious about 'unsustainable' fiscal path". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=, |2=, and |3= (help)
  6. ^ "Unsustainable budget threatens nation". {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Edit request on 5 September 2012

Under the "Economics" section, please remove the word "unprecedented" from the following sentence: "By passing the legislation, Congress was able to prevent an unprecedented U.S. government default on its obligations." You should not need any sources, as this is common knowledge amongst everyone in the financial sector and in the study of Economics. U.S. default on sovereign debt has occurred many times. Meshiah (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite your feelings on the way things "should" be, Wikipedia does require high-quality secondary sources. Give me a few and I'll see what I can do. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I would have no problem removing the word as the source doesn't actually use it (or anything very similar), but the change would need consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Obama's place of birth

FAQ #5 at the top of this page. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article frankly states that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu. However, the equivocality of the matter is not reflected by the article. In this video, which does not appear to have been edited or otherwise faked, Michelle describes O's home country as being Kenya. It is also apparent that the www.infowarscom/breaking-smoking-gun-evidence-obama-born-in-kenya/ [unreliable fringe source?] publisher of Obama's book claims that he was born in Kenya.] I realize, of course, that the whole issue is very controversial, but could we at least edit the article (I can't, I'm new) to exhibit this evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeJeff (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"The equivocality of the matter" is all in the minds of his political enemies. Stop wasting our time AND yours. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, you didn't even address my points. I'm not trying to instigate a political conflict here, I'm just bringing up evidence that ought to be on the page and isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeJeff (talk • contribs) 06:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See FAQ #5 above. SMP0328. (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deficits, take 3

Here is a third attempt. I just want to make sure it's clear that I am not attempting to impose any particular version and welcome improvements to the language. -- William Jockusch, not logged in. 50.133.146.7 (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Budget Deficits

In 2009, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.[1] The U.S. Federal Deficit topped $1 trillion in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 fiscal years.[2] The budget or deficits have been described as "unsustainable" by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner,[3] Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke,[4] and by a group of 10 ex-chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisors.[5] In 2011, Obama proposed a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts to address the problem.[6] A 2011 fight with the Republicans over the debt ceiling led to the Budget Control Act of 2011, with $900 billion in cuts over 10 years, and a bipartisan commission that was supposed to find an additional $1.5 billion in savings. Press reports indicate that the deficit is expected to exceed $1 trillion again in 2012.[7]

References

  1. ^ Phillips, Macon. "Owning up to what we owe".
  2. ^ "U.S. leaders reach debt deal to avoid default".
  3. ^ Trumbull, Mark. "Obama national debt plan: Will it all come down to taxes?".
  4. ^ Schroeder, Peter. "Bernanke asks Congress to get serious about 'unsustainable' fiscal path". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=, |2=, and |3= (help)
  5. ^ "Unsustainable budget threatens nation". {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  6. ^ "Obama Stokes Deficit Fight".
  7. ^ "U.S. budget deficit totals $974B through July".


Better wording, but many of the same problems I mentioned in "take 2" remain. The elephant in the room will always be that Congress controls the budget, not the president. 40% is not 50%, but it's pretty close considering all the Republican obstructionism. "Press reports" saying the budget is expected to exceed $1 trillion fly in the face of the official projections, based on actual data rather than the guesswork of reporters, and suffer from the glaring inaccuracy that the end of Obama's first term refers to FY2013, not FY2012. And non-neutral terminology such as "tax hikes" instead of "revenue increases" still betray your purpose for desiring this in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I still have to agree with Scjessey. Congress controls the budget and this whole deficit discussion smacks of POV pushing. You can try taking this discussion to Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, but it really doesn't belong in his bio, so I think you're wasting your time here. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Refactored the above slightly to put the discussion below the proposal.

Edit request - Libya war

  • Reason: As stated above there is no known ceased cooperation document of this cooperation which started as early as in 2001. Many of ex Libya special forces documents were burned. In most political "correct the previous politics" Obama administration tried to write/show the change(at least little as in waterboarding and partially Guantamo example). Also Gaddafi administration, and he stated that he had long cooperation with most of the fighting in NATO part of this war, which is shown by "hard papers" in the referenced sources(better even see official Human Rights report). Other abroad presidents also e.g. in Sarkozy campaign case too. The NATO which was officially talking about "stopping the war", started the air-support really late, when the public opinion press was very high, and most of the protesters, by they hands and primitive weapons looted the government magazines, with getting some burned documents of internal administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.180.200 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Source supplied says nothing about Obama or events after 2003. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Religious views

There is a clip (here) of Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek in which he says the following (as translated by the uploader):

"I know people who know [Obama]. That doesn't mean anything big. He lived in Chicago where I have contacts, in Hyde Park. They showed me his house. They also told me some interesting things. That privately, he is a total atheist. Total atheist. He's just bluffing. Because he knows that in America you can't have a politcal career if you're not religious."

This seems like the sort of thing that would be unverifiable by its very nature, since if true, only Obama would know, and he would never admit it. But Zizek is a respected public figure and I see no reason why he would lie. It's heresay, I guess, but to me, this seems like a notable enough statement to warrant some kind of mention when presenting Obama's relgious views. If we rely exclusively on Obama's own statements on the matter, I feel like he may as well just write the whole article himself.

aphid360 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Zizek is a terrific source if the conversation were about psychoanalytic theory and the like, but about the religious views of Barack Obama, only Obama is a source on that subject. Given that, as you point out, Zizek is just repeating what unnamed individuals told him and we have no idea where they are getting their information (so really double hearsay at best or just idle speculation), I can't see how there is any reliability in the information. So I would say that this feels like an obvious no. Just because a respected philosopher repeats gossip doesn't make it any less gossip.Jdlund (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to add one more point to your last part that Obama may as well write it himself, it's really difficult to see what other viable sources there are on a person's religious beliefs besides what they claim their beliefs to be. For example, unless there's documentation of him joining a church of a faith other than Christianity and attending regular services or the like, it would be really hard to establish evidence that he's secretly a member of that faith. And to say that he secretly has no faith or doesn't believe there's a God, yes he himself would have to say it. Gossip or implied double hearsay/speculation is not really evidence of anything other than Zizek heard from someone who believes that Obama's an atheist.Jdlund (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The significant part of Zizek's comment is "in America you can't have a political career if you're not religious." The fact that conversations like this happen so often proves that. Nobody can ever know the true religious beliefs of another. What an individual says about themselves is the best guide, but still proves little. Anything else is guessing, and we don't do that here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Obama administration's assassination or "targeted killing" of a U.S. Citizen

(posts refers to this edit)

proposal rejected, proposer indefinitely blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Okey dokey. What are the objections of substance? Thanks-- Settdigger (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it belong sin the lead. There might be room for mentioning something similar somewhere in the body of the article (not sure where, though). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Really? Why not? It's pretty darned important in terms of World History, arguably far, far, far more important than any "trade deals" Obama made which appear higher in the lead. So: the question is: if you're not sure "where" it should go, what are you sure about vis a vis Obama, his assassination of an American citizen, and wikipedia's reflection of that fact? I'll bet you dollars to donuts, Choyool, that historians will remember and write about that assassination much, much, much, much longer and in much, much, much more detail than any trade deals. In fact, you've convinced me. In terms of importance, it trumps the trade deals. Objections? Thanks-- Settdigger (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
See WP:LEAD, e.g. the lead is supposed to be a brief summary of what is said in the body of the article. What historians will write in the future is not for us to determine (WP:CRYSTAL). I am not too heavily involved in writing this article, so I'd delegate that to others to give some pointers as to where exactly it could go or be mentioned (if at all). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Settdigger, there's no need to be vitriolic about this. There's a really important technical reason it can't be in the lead: Because the lead is supposed to be a summarization of the highlights of the article. In terms of importance, I don't think it belongs there because in terms of coverage, it doesn't appear to have sufficient weight compared to other parts of his biography. However, as Seb mentioned above, it probably has a place elsewhere. You might also consider adding it to Presidency of Barack Obama as this directly relates to his actions as President. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
So, you have strong opinions, but you're not "heavily involved." All right. What is a lead? an introduction. Is a lead always a summary of what appears below? Maybe in high school essays. Not in professional writing. Also, I agree with you wholeheartedly, I am not only not interested in determining what future historians will write, because it's impossible, I have no idea what they will write, nor do you, for sure. But we can make educated guesses, can't we? For a president, the wiki page it's a lot more than a bio page. It's a piece of history. And guess what: we're obviously historians too.
One's man's vitriol is another man's passion. Settdigger (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
If you would like to have a discussion on changing Wikipedia's manual of style, you can do so @ WP:MOS, not here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
First off, a lead is what you read in WP:LEAD, always. It's not like a lede in a piece of journalism or a historical biography. Secondly, I'll empahsize again that no, we really can't make educated guesses on what news may or may not be important, particularly when it comes to writing about the biography of a living person. Again, this is because of WP:CRYSTAL. We're not saying your educated guess is wrong, but we are saying that it does not have strong coverage presently. Like I said, there are other places where this information might be appropriate and would easily be found by interested persons. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


I note that neither page mentions the assassination. Clearly, the assassination needs to be mentioned in both.
Clearly, despite a curious discussion of "technical reasons" and "what historians might do," we do have an obligation to reflect historical fact.
Now:
"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."
Okay:
This is the paragraph that immediately precedes my proposed edit:
As president, Obama signed economic stimulus legislation in the form of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 in response to the 2007–2009 recession in the United States. Other major domestic policy initiatives include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, and the Budget Control Act of 2011. In foreign policy, Obama ended US military involvement in the Iraq War, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, signed the New START arms control treaty with Russia, ordered U.S. military involvement in Libya, and ordered the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. In May 2012, he became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly support legalizing same-sex marriage.
Is his assassination less important than all of those? The paragraph is in chronological order it would appear, so my putting the assassination at the bottom, makes a certain amount of sense, since it was reported after the gay marriage thing, I believe. HOWEVER: Obama assasinated the man in 2011, so arguably it should go before the gay marriage mention.

− −

Your thoughts? Settdigger (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
2 more points re: "undue weight" and your mention of a "more historical page."
Hmm. The first one is certainly a complex issue. However: and I must underline this point. it is NOT ENOUGH to cite a wikipedia custom with an acronym as though it is Bible and thus ignore the underlying issues we are discussing. Please MAKE AN ARGUMENT do not cite style manuals. As to which page is "the more historical." Guess what, they're both historical. Equally so, more or less.
So: I'll wait till this time tomorrow to repost my edits, as I need some sleep. Please take my comments into consideration, especially about citing Wikipedia manuals of style. Straight talk is a great watchword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settdigger (talk • contribs) 08:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
sorry: changed my mind. It is offensive, even though I know and you know that the New York Times is a rag after Valerie Plain, to refer to a historical event reported in the New York Times as somehow related to WP:CRYSTAL. Guess what, I Jethrobot, it's not unverifiable speculation. We're not imagining it in a crystal ball. It's the New York Times. If Obama didn't have an American shot, Neil Armstrong didn't land on the moon. You understand what I'm saying to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settdigger (talk • contribs) 08:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the BRD citation. As long as we're citing chapter and verse: WP:BRD-NOT. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. God bless good old Goethe.
Cheers-- Settdigger (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I can understand why just throwing policy pages at you might not be helpful. It's a bad habit, and I apologize. So, here we go with straight talk instead. I still might cite policy pages, but explain the relevant parts in text instead.
  • I note that neither page mentions the assassination. Clearly, the assassination needs to be mentioned in both. Maybe in both, but we still need to come to consensus on that, which is why we have these discussions. I think it certainly belongs on Presidency of Barack Obama, because per some of your sources, these decisions seemed to involve others in his presidency like John O. Brennan and Thomas E. Donilon. I think it might also belong on here, possibly under Foreign Policy, but I also think more people need to weigh in on the issue.
  • I'd like to first point out that I never said this whole assassination issues is unverifiable. It certainly is. So, here's the deal with undue weight. What we do is not primarily the work of historians-- we're writers of an encyclopedia. We're not here to take a stand on what issues on what events will or will not be of historical importance. We're here to reflect how significantly a viewpoint on a subject is covered in the present. The issue of assassination needs to be covered in the article based on how widely/often it is discussed by reliable sources, like news articles / news blogs you've used in relation to this subtopic. Undue weight can be given to a certain set of information in lots of ways, like the number of words, its placement in the article, and how it is placed in relation to other statements. We believe that placing this in the lead constitutes undue weight because 1) It's not part of the summary in the article (and needs to be, because that's the purpose of a lead on Wikipedia articles), and 2) Your opinion on what is (or is not) important (for history or otherwise) is not a valid reason for inclusion or where something belongs. It is all based on the level of coverage.
  • I don't think WP:BRD-NOT applies here. We gave you policy-based reasons why we reverted you (multiple times), and tried to help you not violate the three-revert rule by asking you to come here. You should also note what it says at WP:BRD-NOT:
Bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing without consensus.
This is particularly important when it comes to articles of Featured-article quality.
  • Finally, I would advise against simply adding the material back in tomorrow before you, me, and other editors reach a consensus. You may be blocked from editing if you do not wait for this consensus to build. As I'm sure you know, this is a highly watched article, and a lot of editors will want to weight in.
Anyway, I hope I did a better job of presenting my arguments. I acknowledge you might disagree with them, and I welcome your response. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Jeth, the thing about insinuation is: it's subtle. It's one of those clever things you can do in life. See, when I say: where was your mother last night? I'm not saying anything about her sexual practices. It was only a question, man. I think you understand. When you say WP:CRYSTAL WP:IAMTHEBIBLE and then say nothing else, you are very clearly suggesting that history never happened. So thank you for getting a little goddamned nervous over that. I could just drop little WP:CRYSTAL and WP:INSPIREDBYJEHOVAH into little sections of your proposed edits, and then claim, just like you, that I never said it was unverifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settdigger (talk • contribs) 10:13, 30 August 2012(UTC)
Setdigger makes a valid point about the relative importance of the events in Obama's presidency listed in the lead. The entire paragraph "As president, Obama signed... ...first sitting U.S. president to publicly support legalizing same-sex marriage." should be moved down to the #Presidency section, and the referenced content on his being the first US president known to have ordered the assassination of a US citizen should be added there. Lone boatman (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, God. And thank you, kybernetes. The price of wisdom is above rubies, Black Kite. God bless you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settdigger (talk • contribs) 08:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Slow down, please. We have a way of presenting articles that's codified in the manual of style. That's not going to change on an ad-hoc basis for any particular article. The proposed material[42] is far outside the boundary of acceptable encyclopedic content that it's pointless to attempt a serious discussion about whether it should be included. It won't. If you'll listen patiently, some of the experienced editors might try to explain it to you. One point is debatable, that the extrajudicial targeted killing (calling it an assassination is imprecise and politically charged) of Anwar al-Awlaki (not "an American Citizen" but this particular person) is significant enough to the scope of the life of Obama that it should be mentioned in his biography. I believe this has been considered and rejected. Sure, the constitutional and historical dimension of killing an American (as opposed to the hundreds of non-Americans targeted, and at least several Americans killed who were not the intended targets) is a world event of at least moderate significance, just not important enough to make it into this article. One nice thing about Wikipedia is that it has millions of pages, and a place for almost anything that's worth noting. There is some discussion of this on the Anwar al-Aulaqi page. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
(responding to Lone boatman after edit conflict) Agreed that the gay marriage thing is not significant enough to be in the lede. Even if gay rights is sufficiently important to be a lede-worthy topic, Obama's support for it has not had any practical implications yet. However, every one of these items is more significant than the killing of one particular militant in the anti-terrorism campaign. They are all big policy issues that affected vast numbers of people and changed history, and stand out as some of the major things Obama did as President, as opposed to a critique about the legitimacy of a particular action. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees that every one of those items is more significant than the killing, nor with the description of its context as an anti-terrorism campaign. You and I might, but that's not the point. The relative importance of all of the events is a matter of point of view, so to maintain WP:NPOV the achievements of his presidency should be listed in the presidency section, and not the lead. Lone boatman (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course I'm just stating my opinion, but people do agree, in that we have a consensus version of the lede right now. It's subject to change but that's what the editors have chosen to put there. NPOV doesn't require us to omit his Presidential career, or any other part of his life from the lede, just because we have to make choices about what is significant enough to put there. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As a newbie here who's old enough to know a thing or two, I would like to reiterate again that citing Wikipedia chapter and verse is counterproductive. Let's stick to the substantive matters, it's much more professional. Guidelines are helpful, but it's up to us, not our "bible."

So. We moved rapidly in this dicussion from "assassination" to "extrajudicial targeted killing" to "killing of one particular militant." Oh my god, you mean, words can be politically charged? Goddamn, I knew there was a reason I paid attention to them.

Do we remember the "Health Forests Initiative"? We go great board-feet out of that one.

Settdigger (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we have rules for a reason. It would be silly to argue the substance of why the rules exist every time someone wants to do something that breaks the rules. So to your request that we avoid basing our arguments on Wikipedia policy, I respectfully decline. And no, assassination != extrajudicial killing. That's more than obvious. Here's a source on the subject[43] that points out that what happened was a targeted killing (the specific, neutral description) and that calling it an assassination (a broader, politically charged category) is a value judgment made by critics. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem using "extrajudicial killing" in place of "assassination" in the text. I've made the change, with a link. Lone boatman (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The proposed material is inappropriate for quite a few reasons. Changing that phrase only makes it even more awkward. Obama did not "admit" to anything, for example, and noting that he was the first president is an NPOV violation because it's inserting an argument in place of a simple reporting of the event. Before we even get there, we can search the talk archives but I don't think there's any consensus to mention the subject at all in this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gee, demon, what are the "rules"? Are they "your" "rules"? Or are they in fact guidelines? Let's stick to the substance.

Let's not talk about "targeted killings" vs "assasinations" just yet, because you just DELETED ALL OUR WORK. So maybe you could have changed the nomenclature first, and we could have talked about it.

A "value judgment". See, if I blow away your grandpa, and I'm the POTUS, it's not a "value judgment." It's an assassination. Guess what? Words mean things.

As to Obama's "admission": it's a passive admission, granted. But it's as good as.

Question for group: when is "consensus" reached? There are a lot of Americans.

Settdigger (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What does this have to do with how many Americans there are? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Are non-Americans allowed to have an opinion? HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Are rhetorical questions anisotropic? Clearly what I should have said was: when is "consensus" reached? There are a lot of humans. Since I'm a newbie, perhaps someone less green could give me an idea of how it has been reached on important articles in the past.Settdigger (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
My opinion -- it doesn't belong in this article, but it does deserve a one-sentence mention in the Presidency of Barack Obama article because it is a sort of milestone, but mainstream reliable sources simply didn't make a big deal about it, so we shouldn't either. Of course, if it suddenly becomes a big campaign issue, then we'll probably have to reconsider.--Other Choices (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. The one sentence mention. What should the one sentence be? Ah. I like how, in one moment, Wikipedia is this easily navigated and understood document, readily outlined and dilineated by OUR HOLY BIBLE (of guidelines). In the next breath, it is revealed to me that Wikipedia only reflects the opinions and slants of "mainstream reliable sources." Now, I grant you, wikipedia is value-neutral, or tries to be. This is significantly different from merely being an echo chamber of "mainstream reliable sources." It's one thing to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet. And it's another to blindly follow like sheep whatever your Daddy Government tells you.

Now: Mother Jones made a big deal about it. So did, wait for it:

THE NEW YORK TIMES.

I know. They're just this newspaper, or something.

And yes, clearly only "big campaign issues" deserve Wikipedia mention. Damn, I saw Obama eat a live baby at dinner the other day! See, it didn't become a campaign issue, it was only reported in half of all newspapers on Earth. Nah, no Wikipedia mention.

Settdigger (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Settdigger, I was making what I thought was a reasonable suggestion in line with my understanding of wikipedia policies. I was hoping for reasonable discussion, which I sadly failed to get from you. Your phrase "it is revealed to me that..." implies that I made a pronouncement of "absolute truth," covering up the fact that I clearly stated my opinion, nothing more. I was not making an attempt to speak for wikipedia, and your insinuation that I was doing so is transparently dishonest, giving rise to the reasonable suspicion that you have an ulterior motive here.--Other Choices (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

reformatting

most of the objection seems to be about the placement and weight. those who object to the material being in the lead, or the length, please submit a sandbox of where and how you think the material best fits. I doubt we will ever get 100% consensus on any addition, i will restore the edit after you have had time to submit your improved edit, which would have been the preferred action to section blanking. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No sandbox necessary, the information does not fit because of weight concerns so there is no point trying to improve the wording. Please do not edit war as that is why we have a consensus process. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Note - at the time I made the preceding comment the post immediately above ended with the phrase "restore the edit". - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
i made no edits, please retract your accusation of edit warring. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It has no place in this or any other Wikipedia article, as all it amounts to is a highly biased and slanted take on the current "War on Terror". Tarc (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
If you'll allow argument by example: Tarc's statements have no place on Wikipedia or any other forum of human communication, as all he amounts to is a fount of biased and slanted takes in the current "Nazi Takeover of Earth by Nazis." Now that's we've got that over with. Does anyone read the New York Times? Settdigger (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No. Print is dead. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The Nazis are dead too. But: prints done by Nazis still exist. Settdigger (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That's the second time you've mentioned Nazis in as many comments. Got a thing for them? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's my proposal. I welcome a substantive discussion. User:Settdigger/sandbox
Settdigger (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing of there of value, sorry. So what we have here is the "new" user with a week-old account who dives right into controversial Obama editing suggestions, edit-wars to insert controversial material into the article, reacts with extreme aggression when reverted & confronted on the talk page. Is there any particular sock-master that someone wishes to tie this one to, or just go for a quacker and call it a day? Its not our cheerful Grundle2600, that's for sure. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Sock or newby, both their content proposal and their manner of engaging here on the talk page are far out of touch with anything that could remotely lead to an actionable suggestion to improve the article. We're losing productive time cycling through this so unless they're willing to listen and learn I don't see much point pursuing this further. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
perhaps we simply have a difference of opinion about what is due. you think the nixon article deserves a section about watergate, i think a 16 year old us citizen being droned to death is as important. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Settdigger, there is already a mention of the al-Awlaki assassination in Presidency of Barack Obama. On a quick glance-over, I don't see mention there about his being the first president to admit assassinations publicly (if that is indeed true, I don't know), nor mention of his personal involvement with the "kill list" (I'd drop the baseball card thing, that seems un-encyclopedic). Maybe you should head over to the "Presidency of" article and try to implement appropriately worded changes there. Wookian (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Were any US citizens "assassinated" during the Civil War? -- William Jockusch, not logged in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.146.7 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Will we ever know? HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The point is that according to the article on the American Civil War, there were 72,524 KIA on the Confederate side. Presumably this was done by Union armies following Presidential orders. So a claim of the first ever killing of a US citizen by Presidential orders during the Obama Presidency is manifestly false. Now, I don't know about "assassinated," but at this point we are grasping at semantic straws. -- William Jockusch, not logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.146.7 (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Settdigger that this is significant enough to include in the lead, but there is a legitimate argument that this should be mentioned in the body of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Other thoughts? Settdigger (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a notable event, but it is not notable enough to be in Obama's biography. It's received little in the way of mainstream media coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have a vote. There seems to be a growing consensus that it needs to be included somewhere in the article, even if not right in the lead. Settdigger (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No. Voting is rarely a step towards achieving consensus. We don't vote here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Scjessey, if you had read the discussion above, you would note that the assassination was covered in the New York Times. Thanks Settdigger (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is notable and sourced, but would be better located in the Presidency of Barack Obama article rather than in this BLP. 72Dino (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like consensus to me: I've added it there. Lone boatman (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
@Scjessey: You said that "It's received little in the way of mainstream media coverage". But, that's plainly not true. It received tons of coverage by reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, it has received minimal coverage. A few stories in a few notable publications. Compare that with the countless thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of mainstream news articles it usually takes to make something notable enough to make it into this biography. It's not biographically significant, and since it is all about the "first president" and so on, it belongs in the article about the presidency. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
@Scjessey: So, one reliable source isn't enough? Fair enough. A few aren't enough. Fair enough. Thousands are required? Fair enough. A Google News Archive search returns 5,420 results.[44] Your main objection appears to have been met. Exact wording can be worked out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the real issue here is relative notability, compared to other important issues that are mentioned in the article. For example, how many zillions of articles are there in the Google News Archive on passing the Health Care law or the killing of Osama bin Laden? On the other hand, a lot of those articles were about the events themselves, not focused on Obama's direct involvement. But perhaps the same is true of the 5,420 articles about the assassination.--Other Choices (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
@AQFK: The number of sources is not the only consideration. Of key importance is what specifically they are talking about. Not only do they need to be talking about the assassination, but they also need to be talking about how it is personally significant to Obama (as opposed to just significant for a president). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry if I'm commenting a bit late. I didn't really read every comment above, but I don't see how notable this really is. The US citizen was designated an enemy combatant and took up arms against the United States. No brainer. Did Lincoln need to arrest every Confederate soldier? If anything Lincoln was far worse.--JOJ Hutton 01:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Response to Jojhutton - I also did not read every comment above, and I realize that every article is different and every article has its own consensus on what should be included. I just wanted to mention that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus is in the lead of his Biography. I am not for or against adding this information into President Obama's bio. Viewmont Viking (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
To add to the point above about how many articles the story appeared in, how many of those articles are just running the same small article from the AP? It just received so little attention at the time by anyone that I can't see it as significant. With Lincoln and habeus corpus, that is something that gets harped on by historians a lot. I can see the death of this individual being great fodder for debates in a law school classroom or the like, but I really can't see it as biographically significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.245.234 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Rubicon

User:Seb az86556 and User:Tarc recently opined (indirectly) that my last post was too prolix, so allow me to summarize. Obama crossed the Rubicon when he killed Al-awlawki, a violation of the Magna Carta. Thus, it merits inclusion in this article, not just the Presidency article. Settdigger (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Magan Cartas and Rubicons? All a bit arcane and archaic really. Yes, YOU think Obama has done something wrong, but that's irrelevant. Find us an independent, quality, reliable source that tells us something about this, and you may have a case. Your philosophical musings don't count for anything at all here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
A source won't help, and would not justify inclusion. The likelihood of anything constructive coming out of this is more or less zero. I suggest we mark this proposal as rejected and close to further attempts to revive it. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear HiLo48, Thank you for engaging in this discussion. The question is, of course, what merits inclusion. Why is Obama's support of gay marriage relevant to this article, but not his assassination of a treasonous U.S. citzen? Thanks- Settdigger (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Please respond to what I posted, rather than heading off on another philosophical tangent. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It is, of course, germane. And a propos. Clearly you don't agree that Obama's killing a US citizen is as important as Obama's support of gay marriage. Why is that, HiLo? Thanks- Settdigger (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The answer is, of course, simple. Obama's gay marriage stance has been written about in reliable sources in thousands of articles, but the targeted killing (if I may use the correct, non-loaded term) of Al-awlawki got very little coverage in comparison. Also, this is Obama's biography and it is clear that this killing is not biographically-significant. I concur with Wikidemon on this - it's time to wrap this conversation up, because it is clear you will not win a consensus for inclusion here and your continued pushing of this issue is starting to look a wee bit tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
While I hesitate to beat the dead Jessey horse here, we've established the question of sources. But, we do need to discuss the killing of Al-Awlawki and its biographical significance for Obama. I asserted earlier, in a posting that was unfairly deleted, that this is Obama's Rubicon. Read up on it. [1]Settdigger (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Another quick question: does Scjessey speak for you now, Hilo? He seems eager to do so. Settdigger (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted again across multiple articles. It is a behavior issue at this point - I've suggested mentorship elsewhere. I'll report to AN/I. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Atrocities

http://www.webcitation.org/6Ad6E3mFs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Controversy_over_indefinite_detention

Anyone care to take a stab at integrating these into this article without being overwhelmingly negative? Kobra (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll pass, thanks. Fringe criticisms that have little to do with a bio. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
What, you want a section labeled "Atrocities Committed by Obama" or something? I am assuming that there is some discussion of this issue in the article on his presidency and there's clearly a stand alone article on the NDAA FY12 itself. Not sure what more you are wanting since the issue hasn't had a great deal of impact, certainly not enough to make the bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
there's not going to be a 'controversies' section. check talk page archives re that issue. certainly not an 'atrocities' section. ugh. Cramyourspam (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Obama's home country

covered in FAQ #5
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

About a week ago I brought up the issue of Pres. Obama's place of birth, given that his wife has described his "home country" as Kenya and his literary agent listing him as being from Kenya. Someone, who I presume was an administrator here, rather promptly and perhaps unscrupulously (please do not take this as an attack, as I am unfamiliar with policy and taking this at face value) hid the entry and shrunk the text size. The issue was immediately discarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_75#Regarding_Obama.27s_place_of_birth

However, there is still the matter of what all this means. Should the article mention these things somewhere (I can't edit). Perhaps, "Kenya, however, has been described as his home country by Michele Obama and his literary agent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeJeff (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a super-consensus against, in any way, referring to Obama as being born from any place other than Hawaii. Bringing this issue up at this talk page is simply a waste of your time. SMP0328. (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I never said in this segment that O was born in Kenya...I'm only saying that perhaps it should be mentioned that his own wife in what appears to be an unedited video says his "home country" is Kenya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeJeff (talk • contribs) 00:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Why should it be mentioned? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't a person's "home country" or what his family members call his "home country" rather significant to that person's life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeJeff (talk • contribs) 00:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who said it. There is a strong consensus against such a reference being made in this article. You are entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia articles are run based on, among other things, consensus. You are asking for a modification of that consensus. I am only preparing you for the inevitable result. SMP0328. (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) We've been over this. So. Many. Times. Just... don't. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
YankeeJeff - you agree that in this context "home country" doesn't mean the place he was born. We don't, therefore, know what it does mean. So there's little point to including it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Gee, so facts don't matter...Wikipedia is tyranny by majority. Seb az, you aren't even putting up an argument, you are just perpetuating the automatic dismissal I have seen from many liberals. When the word consensus is mentioned, let's talk about consensus. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:User_Democrat Now have a gander at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:User_Republican Is this the consensus you're referring to?
Liberals? LOL HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I suppose "home country" means just what it means...I am not suggesting that anything but ambivalence should be placed in the article while mentioning the term. YankeeJeff (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So, "home country" means just what it means. LOL HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I'm suggesting that the article should say something like "Kenya, however, has been described as his home country by Michele Obama." — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeJeff (talk • contribs) 01:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Why would you say "however"? HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
And an even more knowledgeable source, Obama himself, said "I've come home"[45] while on a trip to Ireland. I guess we should add that too. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I would say "however" because, as it has been affirmed, the popular opinion says that he was born in the US and it is his home country. By the way Fat Happy, the full quote is "I've come home to find the apostrophe that we lost somewhere along the way.", so he's joking. YankeeJeff (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
YankeeJeff - I gave you enough rope, and it worked. You label those who disagree with you with the pejorative term liberal (which is hilarious to an Australian such as myself), and while agreeing that "home" does not mean that it's where he was born, you want to add it because it contrasts with the "popular opinion" that he was born in the USA. Your POV has seeped through. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not "the popular opinion" that says he was born in the U.S., it's the State of Hawaii. And your immediate interpretation of the statement in Ireland as a joke while not recognizing the use of an obvious figure of speech by his wife in Kenya clearly demonstrates the motive behind this suggestion. Time for a second close. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

First gay president

It should be noted in the main article. For more information, see: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/newsweek-cover-obama-gay-president/story?id=16338110#.UFZqsit6vo0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.167.237 (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The article already thoroughly covers Obama's support for gay rights. There's no need to refer to Newsweek euphemistically referring to him as the "first gay president", with all the possible misunderstanding that is included in such a description of him. SMP0328. (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the article should not call Obama the first gay President any more than the Clinton Article should call him the first black President despite the fact that people referred to him as that regarding how popular he was with African Americans.--174.93.171.108 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the Clinton article does make mention of the "first black president" thing, but it does not actually describe him as the first black president. If this thing with Obama becomes notable or as talked-about, it may be worth a mention, as long as it isn't stated verbatim as originally suggested. Tarc (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
To be clear I meant that it was not mentioned in the context the user proposing this addition seemed to be suggesting. I agree that one day it may be worth mentioning but its too soon and it needs to worded in a way that does not imply that Obama himself is homosexual.--174.93.171.108 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Major changes to lede

I reverted a 13 September 2012 WP:BRD series of edits by Joker123192 (talk | contribs) to the lede, specifically:

  • changing:
    Born in Honolulu, Hawaii,
    Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School,
    where he was president of the Harvard Law Review.
    to:
    Born in Honolulu, Hawaii
    to Kansas native Stanley Ann Dunham and Kenyan exchange student Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.,
    Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School,
    where he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.
  • adding:
    Obama was raised at first by his mother in Hawaii and Indonesia,
    and then by his grandparents in Hawaii again.
    Following his high school graduation in 1979,
  • changing:
    He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree.
    to:
    Before earning his law degree, he was a community organizer in Chicago,
    working primarily as director of the Developing Communities Project    .
  • adding:
    In 1992, he was married to Michelle Robinson, with whom he has two daughters named Malia and Sasha.
  • changing:
    He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School
    from 1992 to 2004.
    to:
    From 1992 to 1997,
    he worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.
  • adding:
    In 1995, he published his widely-praised memoir entitled Dreams from my Father,
    which would later be followed by a book outlining his political beliefs and opinions entitled The Audacity of Hope in 2006
    and a children's book entitled Of Thee I Sing in 2010.
  • changing:
    Several events brought Obama to national attention during
    his campaign to represent the State of Illinois in the United States Senate in 2004,
    including his victory in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary and
    his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.
    to:
    Obama rose to national prominence during
    his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention,
    and his subsequent election to the U.S. Senate that same year.
  • changing:
    His presidential campaign began in February 2007, and
    after a close campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he won his party's nomination.
    to:
    In 2008, he successfully ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, narrowly winning a close primary campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton.
  • changing:
    he defeated Republican nominee John McCain,
    to:
    He then went on to defeat Republican nominee John McCain
    in an historic election victory,
  • changing:
    Other major domestic policy initiatives include
    the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, and the Budget Control Act of 2011.
    to:
    Other major domestic policy initiatives include
    the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,
    the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, and the Budget Control Act of 2011.

repeating (without discussion) the misleading 10 September 2012 removal of:

the March 2004 primary unexpected landslide election which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party, started speculation about a presidential future, and led to the reissue of his memoir

which I had reverted,
as well as introducing a number of inaccuracies and material that is of dubious appropriateness for the lede section.
The most recent talk page discussion about the lede did not indicate a consensus to change it.

Newross (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not save some talk page space and just link the diff? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed before and after lede section text per Wilhelm Meis' request. Newross (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted a third 19 September 2012 misleading revision to the lede—without consensus or any talk page discussion—by Joker123192 (talk | contribs):

  • changing:
    Several events brought Obama to national attention during
    his campaign to represent the State of Illinois in the United States Senate in 2004,
    including his victory in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary and
    his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.
    He won the Senate election in November 2004,
    serving until his resignation following his 2008 presidential election victory.

    His presidential campaign began in February 2007, and
    after     a close campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he won his party's nomination.
    In the 2008 presidential election, he defeated Republican nominee John McCain,
    and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009.

    to:
    Obama rose to national prominence during his
    keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004,
    and then his election to the U.S. Senate in November 2004.

    In 2008, he became the Democratic Party's presidential nominee after a close primary campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton,
    and then went on to defeat Republican nominee John McCain in the general election.
    He was inaugurated as the first black U.S. president on January 20, 2009.

Newross (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

First African American to Hold Office

No new argument here. See FAQ#2 Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

} I know this has been discussed here previously, however we all know Obama is Biracial and many publications have said so. However more recently Obama referred to himself as a "Mixed Kid" from Hawaii. This should be taken into consideration when incorrectly referring to the President as the first African American to hold office. Perhaps the wording should be changed to "the first person of (known) African descent to hold office."

Obama Calls Himself 'A Mixed Kid From Hawaii'

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/09/13/obama-calls-himself-mixed-kid-hawaii

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KekEM3laauA

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-credits-education-with-boosting-mixed-kid-and-little-black-girl-to-white-house/

Edu Lady - Researcher 21:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

Having European ancestry does not make you not African American. As shown by genetic testing, a great many (likely the vast majority) of African Americans in the US have white ancestry. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said he wasn't African American. He identifies himself as Mixed Race which is a different term than African American and which should be reflected accurately. He is the first person of African American descent to hold this office. By saying he is the first African American you're ignoring how he identifies personally and the rest of his heritage. Edu Lady - Researcher 21:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also if you have White ancestry then you're not solely African American. How you identify racially and what you are genetically are two different topics. Edu Lady - Researcher 21:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

We aren't ignoring anything. As you state, and as Obama himself as stated, he is African American. That does make him the first African American president, which is noteworthy to mention in the lead. That he also has white ancestry is not as noteworthy; he isn't the first president of English descent, so it doesn't get a mention in the article lead. Where it does get a mention, and therefore why we are not ignoring the rest of his heritage, is in the Early Life section, which specifically states his descent and ethnic background through his mother. This is a non-starter. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're ignoring the credible sources where it comes straight from his mouth that he says he is Mixed race. What is being construed here is that he is African American and only African American. Yes the article mentions his Irish etc heritage, but what the sentence in the first paragraph is saying is that it doesn't matter, one drop of Black blood in you means you're Black, regardless of how he identifies. My proposal is to word the intro differently to where it reflects him being the first person of African American descent to hold office while highlighting the fact he is Mixed race. If you look at other articles on Wikipedia regarding certain Multiracial persons it doesn't solely describe them as African American. Edu Lady - Researcher 21:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

This question is fully addressed in FAQ #2 near the top of this page. Obama is African American, and by consensus based on the sources we have decided that is the primary way to describe his race. He is also mixed race, biracial, Hawaiian, and many other things, which if notable are duly reflected in this article as well. Consensus is not going to change on this, and I believe it's been explained adequately here. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can be changed so I am pretty much laughing at your theory that it cannot be. Another consensus can arise and any consensus can be defeated based on proper sources etc. Obama is not solely African American regardless of how you continue to enforce the racist one drop rule. You cannot describe or identify someone based on the way you feel he is. What you are promoting is pure racism and not facts. Edu Lady - Researcher 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

You seem to have decided that to be called African American one must have no European ancestry. That is simply not the case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with HiLo48. If Obama self-identifies as African American, then that's how we should describe him. Also, 1/2 African ancestry is more than enough to consider him African American. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually I'm in favor of getting it right, rather than using some non-guideline reason to get it only "half" right.--JOJ Hutton 00:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A person can identify racially how they want. If a person of African American ancestry has White ancestry as well, genetically they are not solely African American, but can choose to identify how they deemed fit. Obama self identifies as Mixed race and in other sources African American. If 1/2 African ancestry is more than enough to consider him African American then how come 1/2 White ancestry isn't enough to consider him White? Why? Because you are looking at this in the eyes of society not genetics. Edu Lady - Researcher 00:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

Race is itself a societal construct. Genetically, we are Homo sapiens. There is no specific gene that designates one "African American." There are genes for things such as skin color, and Barack Obama inherited and expresses genes that darken his skin color. Genetically, he is African American, if there can even be said to be such a genetic definition. The societal definition IS the more important one. Why is it notable that he is the first African American president? It is precisely because of societal standards, a society that spent the first century of this nation's existence with Africans as slaves, and the second century with legal statutes restricting their exercise of equal rights and advancement. When encountered on the street, society does not look at a man like Obama and say "hey, was your mother white?" They treat him as a black man, along with everything that carries with it. That is also why being half African makes you an African American, but generally being half white doesn't do the opposite. Society will not treat you as white. Maybe some day that will change; we have made strides in that direction over the last half century. What is notable IS the societal definition. Especially since race is a societal construct. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thats a nice opinion, but is there a guideline that would back that up?--JOJ Hutton 00:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
FAQ2. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
FAQ2 isn't policy, nor is it based on any policy. It is, just like most of that FAQ, a made up list of things that a small minority of editors decided to come up with 4 years ago as an attempt to stop relevant discussion before it happens.--JOJ Hutton 00:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we're pretty much at the point where your opinion is no longer valued in regards to this article, given the amount of antagonism and animosity that both you and John have been throwing around here over the last few weeks. The FAQ listings represent a consensus of editors (majority, not minority) on the various matters to attempt to addre4ss the perennial requests made on this talk page. If most editors here feel that "African-American" is the proper descriptor, then that is what it will be. The FAQ, hopefully, lessens the time we have to spend when the 51st request for "bi-racial" or "mulatto" is made. Or the 52nd. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


@OurobotosCobra. This is NOT about how one is treated on the street. If I walked down the street dressed in torn, dirty clothing, unwashed hair with several full garbage bags, people might treat me as homeless. Doesn't mean I am though. Often times I hear African Americans in an attempt to discourage Mixed race identiy bringing up the notion that "White people will never see you as White". Who do you think started increased awareness of Mixed race identity? It was WHITE WOMEN who were mothers of Biracial children. Being Mixed race is not about being White. Its about being recognized for your full ancestry, NOT based on what society sees you as. So if society said you were fat, but you weighed 99 lbs would you think that you were fat based on what society sees you as? Obama is not asking to be treated as White but he is just as White as he is Black. This should not be a topic of debate. Obama is a Black/White Biracial man who has identified as Mixed Race and African American. You have no right to decide how someone identifies racially. You are totally making this personal. Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be based on reliable sources NOT what society thinks you are. Edu Lady - Researcher 00:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

None of this really matters; no one is denying that Obama is bi-racial, the point is that it isn't terribly relevant. In America, "African-American" is the generally accepted terminology for black men and women. "Bi-racial" may be more ethnographically precise, but it just isn't a term commonly used in everyday discussions about race. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Obama cannot change the color of his skin the way you can change your clothing, so that is a false comparison. I am not deciding how someone identifies. Both his being African American, which he identifies as, and his mother's ancestry and ethnicity, which he identifies as, are in the article. One is more notable than the other, so gets the lead. Nothing is denied, nothing is left out. I find funny that you are screaming about self-identification, but you only want to use the instances of self-identification that support your position. What about Obama's other statements? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Article quality

So, where is the best place to discuss proposals to improve the article's quality? As I was saying before my last question was so rudely hatted, there is an article improvement tag which has been there for three months. If I can ask without being accused of trolling, what's the best way to get that actioned on this, ahem, featured article? --John (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The best way to resolve an issue with an article is to fix it yourself. Nobody else is compelled to do what you want. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice teamwork. --John (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This would be the place to make suggestions. You can also, as Kerfuffler suggested, be bold and try something out yourself. But I'd recommend discussing it here if it's anything substantial or potentially controversial. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes John, this is precisely the place to discuss improvements to the article. I've no idea what you suggested before. What would you suggest now? HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could give us an example of a specific bit of "low quality" text? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


  • Am I missing something fairly obvious? Where is this "article improvement tag" ? Tarc (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    There isn't one. Perhaps he's referring to that FAR foolishness, since he appears to be heavily involved in it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'll just add that with respect to FAR, much of the commenting there seems to ignore the fact that this article is in summary style - claims about certain sections lacking detail ignore the existence of the sub articles. A fair amount of commenting there also features the usual calls for more negative crap for "balance", which speaks to the feeling of the regular editors at the time it was listed that FAR was being abused by agenda-driven editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    Interesting that you (Tarc) would comment in talk without (apparently) having read the article since, apparently, at least July. Why don't you take a few minutes or hours to read the article, find the tag (it's been there since I added it in July, as I say) and then come back here once you have done that. --John (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    Interesting indeed, John; I did read the article, and was giving you an opportunity (now missed) to correct yourself. You first tagged the bin Laden section for a POV check on 18:05 26 July 2012, then reverted Wikidemon's removal at 19:45 26 July 2012, and finally removed the tag yourself and added material to satisfy the reason you tagged it in the first place at 19:57 26 July 2012. Though it was removed the next day by William Jockusch, you did not challenge it after that. So, is there anything you wish to add? Tarc (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    There certainly is, but WP:CIVIL prohibits it. It's there, you'll find it. Read the article. Then come back. --John (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • #War in Afghanistan section. "He also proposed to begin troop withdrawals 18 months from that date." has an {{update-small}} template from July. I don't understand why you couldn't just come out and say this, John. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Ahh, well then this was a simple matter of John not explaining himself clearly. When someone says "article improvement tag", I think most would presume that to mean a large tag that calls attention to...article improvement. Citations and out-of-date links have little to do with article improvement, but are just routine maintenance-y kind of things. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

John, you've lost me on this. Unaware of the detail of previous discussions, I assumed good faith in the first part of this section, and politely asked you to give us more detail of what you were concerned about. Your subsequent posts have ONLY involved attacking other editors. No more assuming good faith from me. You aren't showing any yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm used to dealing with people who can use Ctrl-F. I normally also work with people who are familiar with the content of the article they are discussing. My own ability to assume good faith has taken a beating here too. Anyway, all that being said, any substantive suggestions from you wonderful people? --John (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Re Ctrl-F, I now realise what you're talking about, but surely you realise that your earlier posts have been hidden. I DID NOT see them when I kindly but mistakenly assumed good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Take the chip off your shoulder and make some constructive suggestions, rather than just being disruptive. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  21:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
And, once we solve this fairly modest issue, would it help to make a list here of other issues? We could start with the ones brought up at the FAR. In many cases (as someone has commented there) they are matters (like the one we have been tortuously discussing here) that were discussed, agreed, but then nothing happens for months or indeed ever. So maybe we could make a fresh start here, fix some of the problems in the article, and short-circuit the FAR. We'd also end up with a much better article, which would be good. --John (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (Sound effect of tumble weed rolling) Here, I'll make it easy for you. My advanced editing skills (Ctrl-F again) reveal that there is still no mention of the drone attacks in the article. This has been criticised at the FAR. The Guardian thinks it's notable in connection with the subject of this article. What say we include it in the article? --John (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Certainly that's a valid topic in the article on the presidency. I'm not sure I see the argument for including it in the bio, has it been a big enough of an issue that it is a noteworthy event in his life, as opposed to belonging in the article on the presidency? Not that another article should determine what goes in this one, but by way of comparison, drone attacks in Pakistan and other areas have been pretty consistent since 2004 and using that advanced editing skills of yours I notice zero mentions of drone attacks in Bush's bio. I'd say editors there made the right decision in not putting it in the bio as I'd say the decision should be here. But that's just my opinion on it.Jdlund (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure. At the moment we have roughly as much on his sporting affiliations as on his leadership of the US through four years of war in Afghanistan (and much of the latter needs to be updated, as we laboriously established upthread). At the moment we have roughly three times as much on his religious affiliations as we do on Afghanistan. Is that just about the right balance for this "Featured Article", do folks think? I wouldn't agree of course but it would be interesting to hear from some of the regulars here about why this is the best possible shape for the article to take. --John (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The religious views section is too long indeed, probably an outcome of the conspiracy theories. It could use some trimming. This being a biography, religion is a significant part of most Americans' lives, a primary topic. One man's hobbies and physical pleasures, though not of grave importance to the rest of the world, are a very real part of that person's own life story. A while ago I read Walter Isaacson's wonderful biography of Ben Franklin, for example. It discussed Franklin's relationship to religion extensively, as well as his enthusiasm for sport as a young man, particularly swimming. Any particular middle eastern event, whether the Afghanistan war or the drone attacks, is a 3rd or 4th order topic that has to be balanced against coverage of others: Obama / presidential career / foreign policy / middle east / drone attacks (or Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Arab Spring, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iran, terrorism, etc). My sense is that the drone attacks could be covered in about 3 words with a link, that during his tenure Obama's administration continued the policy of hunting down Al Qaida and Taliban targets and other perceived enemies, including the use of aerial drones... with a link and source. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Trim the religious part a little (I liked the comparison with Franklin, but Obama doesn't need such a long section defending him against crackpot theories that aren't even mentioned in the article); expand and update the Afghanistan section. The Guardian piece reports 'The study by Stanford and New York universities' law schools, based on interviews with victims, witnesses and experts, blames the US president, Barack Obama, for the escalation of "signature strikes" in which groups are selected merely through remote "pattern of life" analysis.' and I think the mention would reflect that; or are there reputable sources that consider the drones to have been a success? Not much more than 3 words, a short sentence should do it. I would also like to see the sporting affiliations trimmed back slightly; per your Franklin example, it is ok to include a little stuff like this as human interest, but Obama is mainly known as a politician and leader, and the reader will want to read something of his political successes and failures. The sporting stuff isn't awfully well-sourced either. There's more, but this would be a great start. --John (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Article quality

So, where is the best place to discuss proposals to improve the article's quality? As I was saying before my last question was so rudely hatted, there is an article improvement tag which has been there for three months. If I can ask without being accused of trolling, what's the best way to get that actioned on this, ahem, featured article? --John (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The best way to resolve an issue with an article is to fix it yourself. Nobody else is compelled to do what you want. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  05:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice teamwork. --John (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This would be the place to make suggestions. You can also, as Kerfuffler suggested, be bold and try something out yourself. But I'd recommend discussing it here if it's anything substantial or potentially controversial. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes John, this is precisely the place to discuss improvements to the article. I've no idea what you suggested before. What would you suggest now? HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could give us an example of a specific bit of "low quality" text? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


  • Am I missing something fairly obvious? Where is this "article improvement tag" ? Tarc (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    There isn't one. Perhaps he's referring to that FAR foolishness, since he appears to be heavily involved in it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'll just add that with respect to FAR, much of the commenting there seems to ignore the fact that this article is in summary style - claims about certain sections lacking detail ignore the existence of the sub articles. A fair amount of commenting there also features the usual calls for more negative crap for "balance", which speaks to the feeling of the regular editors at the time it was listed that FAR was being abused by agenda-driven editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    Interesting that you (Tarc) would comment in talk without (apparently) having read the article since, apparently, at least July. Why don't you take a few minutes or hours to read the article, find the tag (it's been there since I added it in July, as I say) and then come back here once you have done that. --John (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    Interesting indeed, John; I did read the article, and was giving you an opportunity (now missed) to correct yourself. You first tagged the bin Laden section for a POV check on 18:05 26 July 2012, then reverted Wikidemon's removal at 19:45 26 July 2012, and finally removed the tag yourself and added material to satisfy the reason you tagged it in the first place at 19:57 26 July 2012. Though it was removed the next day by William Jockusch, you did not challenge it after that. So, is there anything you wish to add? Tarc (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    There certainly is, but WP:CIVIL prohibits it. It's there, you'll find it. Read the article. Then come back. --John (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • #War in Afghanistan section. "He also proposed to begin troop withdrawals 18 months from that date." has an {{update-small}} template from July. I don't understand why you couldn't just come out and say this, John. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Ahh, well then this was a simple matter of John not explaining himself clearly. When someone says "article improvement tag", I think most would presume that to mean a large tag that calls attention to...article improvement. Citations and out-of-date links have little to do with article improvement, but are just routine maintenance-y kind of things. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

John, you've lost me on this. Unaware of the detail of previous discussions, I assumed good faith in the first part of this section, and politely asked you to give us more detail of what you were concerned about. Your subsequent posts have ONLY involved attacking other editors. No more assuming good faith from me. You aren't showing any yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm used to dealing with people who can use Ctrl-F. I normally also work with people who are familiar with the content of the article they are discussing. My own ability to assume good faith has taken a beating here too. Anyway, all that being said, any substantive suggestions from you wonderful people? --John (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Re Ctrl-F, I now realise what you're talking about, but surely you realise that your earlier posts have been hidden. I DID NOT see them when I kindly but mistakenly assumed good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Take the chip off your shoulder and make some constructive suggestions, rather than just being disruptive. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  21:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
And, once we solve this fairly modest issue, would it help to make a list here of other issues? We could start with the ones brought up at the FAR. In many cases (as someone has commented there) they are matters (like the one we have been tortuously discussing here) that were discussed, agreed, but then nothing happens for months or indeed ever. So maybe we could make a fresh start here, fix some of the problems in the article, and short-circuit the FAR. We'd also end up with a much better article, which would be good. --John (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (Sound effect of tumble weed rolling) Here, I'll make it easy for you. My advanced editing skills (Ctrl-F again) reveal that there is still no mention of the drone attacks in the article. This has been criticised at the FAR. The Guardian thinks it's notable in connection with the subject of this article. What say we include it in the article? --John (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Certainly that's a valid topic in the article on the presidency. I'm not sure I see the argument for including it in the bio, has it been a big enough of an issue that it is a noteworthy event in his life, as opposed to belonging in the article on the presidency? Not that another article should determine what goes in this one, but by way of comparison, drone attacks in Pakistan and other areas have been pretty consistent since 2004 and using that advanced editing skills of yours I notice zero mentions of drone attacks in Bush's bio. I'd say editors there made the right decision in not putting it in the bio as I'd say the decision should be here. But that's just my opinion on it.Jdlund (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure. At the moment we have roughly as much on his sporting affiliations as on his leadership of the US through four years of war in Afghanistan (and much of the latter needs to be updated, as we laboriously established upthread). At the moment we have roughly three times as much on his religious affiliations as we do on Afghanistan. Is that just about the right balance for this "Featured Article", do folks think? I wouldn't agree of course but it would be interesting to hear from some of the regulars here about why this is the best possible shape for the article to take. --John (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The religious views section is too long indeed, probably an outcome of the conspiracy theories. It could use some trimming. This being a biography, religion is a significant part of most Americans' lives, a primary topic. One man's hobbies and physical pleasures, though not of grave importance to the rest of the world, are a very real part of that person's own life story. A while ago I read Walter Isaacson's wonderful biography of Ben Franklin, for example. It discussed Franklin's relationship to religion extensively, as well as his enthusiasm for sport as a young man, particularly swimming. Any particular middle eastern event, whether the Afghanistan war or the drone attacks, is a 3rd or 4th order topic that has to be balanced against coverage of others: Obama / presidential career / foreign policy / middle east / drone attacks (or Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Arab Spring, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iran, terrorism, etc). My sense is that the drone attacks could be covered in about 3 words with a link, that during his tenure Obama's administration continued the policy of hunting down Al Qaida and Taliban targets and other perceived enemies, including the use of aerial drones... with a link and source. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Trim the religious part a little (I liked the comparison with Franklin, but Obama doesn't need such a long section defending him against crackpot theories that aren't even mentioned in the article); expand and update the Afghanistan section. The Guardian piece reports 'The study by Stanford and New York universities' law schools, based on interviews with victims, witnesses and experts, blames the US president, Barack Obama, for the escalation of "signature strikes" in which groups are selected merely through remote "pattern of life" analysis.' and I think the mention would reflect that; or are there reputable sources that consider the drones to have been a success? Not much more than 3 words, a short sentence should do it. I would also like to see the sporting affiliations trimmed back slightly; per your Franklin example, it is ok to include a little stuff like this as human interest, but Obama is mainly known as a politician and leader, and the reader will want to read something of his political successes and failures. The sporting stuff isn't awfully well-sourced either. There's more, but this would be a great start. --John (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This has been sitting for a week without action, so I have unarchived it. Can I take it we have consensus to enact the suggestions above? --John (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • On the subject of the Bin Laden killing, I believe the most mainstream criticism relates to intel leaks. I would support addition of that to the article. I have no interest in including criticism of the fact that it was a kill mission (as opposed to a capture mission).William Jockusch (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry

Where does this belong? In the main article, or in one of its own? --Pawyilee (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Researchers at Ancestry.com say President Barack Obama is the 11th great-grandson of the first African man to be declared a slave in America, according to CBS News.

Reads like a bit of interesting trivia to me. It's not clear how many other people exist with the same status. He wouldn't be the only one. Maybe there's thousands of 'em. Not sure if it belongs in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that...

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

...Barack Obama has personally asked for Russell Elton to be Australias Ambassador to the U.S.? I heard a whisper that the friendship between Barack Obama and Russell Elton has gotten to the point where Barack has asked Julia Gillard to send Russ to the U.S.A! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombatsrule (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place for general discussion and we will need more than whispers for this to be discussed.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't belong here in the main bio in any case. Get it sourced, not whispered gossip, and present it at the Presidency article. No guarantee it will be accepted there either, but it won't fly here.Tvoz/talk 06:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 October 2012

There are a few bias comments in here, like stating that he is the worst president. The point of a biography, or Wikipedia in general, is to give unbiased, objective and factual information. Comments like that are unprofessional and ruins the credibility of Wikipedia Please, whether you support Obama or not, change this article for the sake of having clean unbiased information.

198.82.65.207 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been fixed and was basic vandalism.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixing template-size error with Cite_quick

05 October 2012: I have checked to see that the fast Template:Cite_quick (created 2 months ago) can be used to handle the wp:CS1-style citations in this article, and stop the error "template include size is too large". During testing, all other templates (and navboxes) have fit, so the use of {cite_quick} will solve the template-size error, plus allow another 500 citations to be added, and many could even use the original {cite_web} or {cite_journal} templates if needed. The edit-preview time will drop from about a 40-second delay to only an 11-second reformat. If there are no other concerns, then I will switch to use {cite_quick} later this evening, when there are few other changes in progress. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You know very well, per the deletion discussion concerning this template, that it is only for testing and should not be deployed in article space, so should be removed from here. Please undo your change, as it has also broken many of the references.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Entire article was broken, rejecting 14 templates, so compromise: This is a compromise to get the entire article to display. Prior to the use of the fast {cite_quick} template, the entire article was broken (see prior revision: oldid=516263945), where it died on the final 14 templates. Two entire bottom navboxes could not display ( {US Presidents} & Election 2012), nor the Authority control, nor the {Persondata}, nor even the featured-article link; all the following templates were broken by the excessive total include-size:
Now, the entire article will reformat, to display all other templates and navboxes, and edit-preview within 11 seconds, rather than 40. The template {cite_quick} is a compromise to allow wp:CS1 citation templates in very large articles, and contrary to incorrect claims, it was not discussed during the July 15 deletion discussion, but rather came as a later compromise. I have changed the journal cites to show volume and issue numbers, and any other formatting issues can be discussed. Also, other CS1 templates can still be used in the article, such as adding new cites by {cite web} or {cite press release}. Again, this is a compromise, to allow all templates to fit together, while we work to improve the article's content as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
JohnBlackburne is correct. You are being wilfully disruptive. You've been told time and again the people think your test templates should only serve to help improve the standard citation templates, and you won't do that. Instead, you disrupt articles, and suck peoples' time. You should be blocked for this, and my yet be. I've remove your test template for this page. I know that it's a tad over the template expansion size. The solution to that is to cut some of the over-citation that is present in this article (cf Wikipedia:Citation overkill). Over-done navboxes such as {{United States presidential election, 2012}} are not helping any, either. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: User Br'er Rabbit has been blocked indefinitely. Dream Focus 00:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
For the record, the block (and currently, ban discussion) had nothing to do with his actions here - it was for socking in violation of previous editing restrictions. I have not opinion or involvement there, just letting people know not to be paranoid that you'll get blocked that easily for arguing here. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No consensus to break navboxes & Persondata again: This article is involved in a featured-article review, and was specifically fixed to reformat all bottom templates, including 3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and the FA/GA interwiki links to the other-language wikipedias. Please do not break the article again without prior consensus. Already, people have expressed favor to have the entire article fit within the page limits, without worrying about the template-size errors. Please respect that result. To reformat the entire article, then prior consensus is needed, such as by showing a userfied version which formats without breaking the bottom 14 templates. Thank you. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    Reverted you. You've been enjoined from deploying your experimental templates into articles. You'll be blocked for disruption should you persist. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    a note; I've reviewed the differences in the rendered output; there are many. There are a great many punctuation and positioning anomalies, but there are as many serious omissions of data; missing editors, quotes, agencies, journal names, &c. Your template is not fit; it is outright broken. I may not be used in articles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for noting specific concerns, and I have changed {cite_quick} to handle those cases. Meanwhile, your revert has broken the entire article "Barack Obama" to crash the bottom 3 navboxes, {Persondata} and the FA/GA interwiki links. Please reverse your changes. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
If you know how to fix it then please do so. It's a fucking awful mess at the moment, and Br'er Rabbit is currently blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the template itself, because I haven't taken the time to look at it, but I do know this: you two need to stop edit warring on this immediately. It's making it very difficult to follow changes in this article, and that is by definition disruptive. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  12:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Br'er has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring, but I think was less worried about the 100 citations which crashed bottom navboxes or {Persondata} than about the missing cite values, which I have fixed now. I am sorry I did not respond sooner, and I realize this is a high-visibility featured article, but I have limited time to handle issues each day. The crashing of this article is a massive, complex problem, but I have fixed it again. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You're at least as guilty of edit warring on this as Br'er Rabbit, and the next time you do it, it's going to WP:ANEW. It's hugely disruptive, and I don't want to hear excuses. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  17:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually you've broken it again as the links in about half the references are wrong with the archive and normal links exchanged. I'm not going to revert this myself again but perhaps someone else could restore the proper working templates over this badly broken one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Removing the "cite quick" breaks the page. That disrupts Wikipedia to make a point, which is patently against current guidelines and a very bad idea. It could even be considered vandalism. That means Wikid is not subject to 3rr in reverting. --Nouniquenames 03:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikid77's version seems to work fine, while the other version does not. Not sure about the load speed thing, both versions load reasonable fast for me so I can't tell the difference. Dream Focus 00:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Timeout with Wikimedia Foundation error

When an article takes longer than about 60 seconds to edit-preview, then the whole page can stop with "wp:Wikimedia Foundation error" (WFE). If the WFE error occurs when saving the page, then often the changes actually are saved, and the screen flashes the full-screen error afterward. Now, by using the fast-cite Template:Cite_quick, then the whole page reformats so rapidly that there is little chance of seeing Wikimedia Foundation error again during editing. Please remember, this is a vast, massive article, and it needs to be trimmed in size, or split, to simplify future editing. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There's only 806 kilobytes of readable prose, which isn't all that much. The problem is the huge number of templates (which include citations, of course). It's already a summary style article with dozens of sub articles. It's hard to see how it could be cut down much further. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

grammar

It reads: "....first 'african' american to hold office." Black would be a better word because it includes those from Haiti, etc.Slushy9 (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

African American is by far the more commonly used term by reliable sources regarding Obama and is what Obama identifies himself as. Due to those reasons African American is the better choice.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The OP may also benefit from clicking [show] beside the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of this page. Question 2 apples here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Can fix template-error by hand-coded cites

Another option, although very tedious, is to gain consensus, per WP:CITEVAR, to remove the citation templates and begin replacing with hand-coded citations of authors, italic titles, dates, etc. The initial effort probably requires the hand-coding of about 100 citations, as a first step, to fit within the post-expand include-size limit of 2,048,000 bytes of template data, and not crash the bottom 14 templates (3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and FA/GA links). I guess, the next step is to !vote, further below. However, other concerns can be discussed at "#General discussion" rather than in the Support/Oppose/Neutral sub-threads. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Support

The following editors support removal of cite templates in "Barack Obama".

  1. Support. Too much hostility and fear about cite templates, and whether the future Lua script modules will work (without their own new problems), and anyway, hand-coded citations are 30x times faster than {cite_news} or {cite_web}, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

The following editors oppose removal of cite templates in "Barack Obama".

  1. Oppose. Are you kidding? Handcoding citations is crazy talk. There are over 300 references, many of which apply multiple times. Switching over to handcoded references would require an enormous effort. And isn't that a retrograde step? The goal is generally to have more automation to make the life of the editor easier, not less. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    See below #General discussion note "Semi-automated hand-coding". -Wikid77 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  2. Oppose anything that is lossy. Hand-coded cites can't easily be restored to templated ones, can they? They'd have to be redone from scratch. The inverse isn't true, one could create hard-coded cites from templates. It's also unacceptable that we have a page that crashes the server's parser. Isn't there a simple procedural / technical solution to this one, such as creating an intermediary version? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    See below #General discussion note "Smaller page text". Restoring hand-coded cites to templates, after 6-8 months (for use of Lua script cites), is likely to be tedious. -Wikid77 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  3. Oppose under the very specific understanding that this article must otherwise use cite quick. --Nouniquenames 03:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

The following editors are neutral about cite templates in "Barack Obama".

  1. Neutral. (comment)

General discussion

Discuss here with other comments about the use of the cite templates, {cite_news}, {cite_web}, {cite_quick}, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Semi-automated hand-coding: It would be easy to have a template to generate the "hand-coded" simple wikitext, by using a variation as {Cite_quick/subst} to run as a wp:Subst'ed template, once the reftags are changed from "<ref>" to "<xxref>" in an Obama/sandbox to allow subst'ing outside the reftags. Then insert all {Cite_quick/subst} and save to store simple wikitext cites. Finally, re-edit to reverse "<xxref>" back to "<ref>" and adjust any format glitches. Once the Obama/sandbox has been skimmed for approval, then copy all text to the live article. -Wikid77 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Smaller page text: Another option is to shrink the article by some minor cites, and removing the fancy template parameters such as the "archiveurl=" which is excessive because the major "url=" webpages are still current, and the archive-sites are "too much information" to cause the cite-templates to exceed their parameter data limit (the post-expand include-size limit). Perhaps next year, the DASHBot could be re-run to re-add the "archiveurl=" data back into 120 cites, but for now, it would reduce the article enough to fit, but re-raise the edit-preview from 11 seconds back to 40 seconds. -Wikid77 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Lua-cites for Obama need work: Some editors have imagined that the wp:CS1 cite templates "have been rewritten" completely, on test2.wiki, using a Lua script module, as if "perfect" fast versions. However, for months, those partial versions, although fast, have had severe bugs, such as double dots ".." between some parameters, missing spaces, or unformatted links to archive URLs. To check progress, I have copied the Obama article to test2.wiki, so that other editors can see the rate of progress, in changing cite templates to use Lua modules. See test2.wiki:
http://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama   - version of Obama page on test2.wiki
In general, any page on test2.wiki has the same URL format as enwiki, with the leading "en." changed (to be "test2."), but only a tiny fraction of the millions of templates and article pages have been copied there for early testing. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • No, the Lua templates aren't ready for prime time but they will be. It took me a few hours to port a mildly complex template {{Zh}} from scratch. I know the template well enough from using it but knew nothing of its coding, and it only took me so long as I was learning Lua at the same time. There's no deadline for porting templates to Lua but the citation templates should be the first ones done as the ones with the most immediate impact.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Lua cite templates fixed to match format: I have edited the test2.wiki Lua script Module:Citation to fix many of the format problems, and now, the Lua-based citations are almost identical to the wp:CS1 templates. Feel free to improve any other format differences, among the numerous parameters. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the Chicago Tribune Obama was married on Oct. 18th 1992 and not Oct. 3rd 1992. Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-new_michelle018t20080606095724,0,73482.photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.141.84 (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2012

Fix broken link, External links, CongLinks, parameter s/b washpo = gJQAugUh6W 184.78.81.245 (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What? --Ashenai (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
It is not necessarily correct but it is better than a dead link. It generates a link to[46], which is a list of news stories about Obama's White House. Apteva (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Obama's teachers and mentors?

Did I miss something, or does the article make no mention of Obama's association with Frank Marshall Davis, Edward Said, Roberto Unger, and Bill Ayers? I think it ought to include such.

John Link (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it Obama once served on a committee with Ayers and was at a political fundraiser at his house; Davis, I believe, was an acquaintance when both of them lived in Chicago; Unger was an old professor of Obama; and Obama took a class taught by Said and once sat next to him at a dinner. It doesn't appear that his "relationship" with any of these individuals was significant enough or had enough consequence to put into Obama's biography. I get where you're coming from with the whole 2016 movie and all, but some film (made as an election season attack) saying that these men were his mentors or founding fathers or whatever language it uses doesn't somehow mean that they honestly were important enough to the course of his life to warrant a mention in his bio. I do believe that Ayers is covered in the FAQ above; no one has ever proposed including the rest but the argument for their inclusion seems far weaker than even Ayers. I'd have to definitely second that no.Jdlund (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Obama mentors is useful information. However, adding Bill Ayers name is potential misleading and negative. Therefore, it should not be done, particularly since it is misleading (negative, if presented fairly is ok but in this case, Ayers is not really a mentor). He did have a Black Senator mentor when he was State Senator. Wawaxi (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2011/10/06/obama-crosses-the-rubicon-the-killing-of-anwar-al-awlaki/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_75&oldid=1235531158"