Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 79

Hobby Lobby decision missing from Health care reform section
The current version of the Health care section looks like everything ended in 2012. At the close of the current Supreme Court session, the Hobby Lobby case was decided and should be included in this section to avoid the appearance of being an oversight. I have introduced two versions now (User:Scjessey said the first version was too long), and one of the two versions in either shorter or longer form should be retained; otherwise the section gives the impression to readers that nothing occurred since 2012 according to Wikipedia, and that the 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision influencing the Health care plan did not take place. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since that section already refers to one Supreme Court decision, so a sentence about Burwell v. Hobby Lobby would seem appropriate. SMP0328. (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with User:SMP0328, since both HiLo48 and Scjessey felt the 3 sentence version was too long. The one sentence version looks like this: The only major challenge to Obama's health care plan following 2012 came in 2014 when Burwell v. Hobby Lobby became a landmark decision limiting Obama's health care plan by the United States Supreme Court which directly struck down Obama's contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Possibly this one sentence version can be applied to fit. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this? "In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a Health and Human Services regulation adopted under the Affordable Care Act, requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees."


 * This wording is about the same length of the other case-citing sentence in that part of the article and clearly explains what was decided in Hobby Lobby. SMP0328. (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good brevity and my slight amendation would suggest adding Obama's name in the first part of the sentence to: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Supreme Court ruled to limit Obama's contraceptive mandate, under the RFRA, and to allow for-profit corporations to be exempt from...(rest of User:SMP0328 wording). If this works, or something close, then I'm inclined to support it. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think referring to that mandate as being "Obama's" would result in POV issues. We should not make this personal. The sentence should simply refer to the Hobby Lobby decision with a brief description. SMP0328. (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of that stuff is appropriate for this article. It is simply not a significant biographical detail in the life of Barack Obama. These are matters concerning the Obama presidency and SCOTUS. We should be cutting down some of the detail in this summary style article, not adding to it. Also, as mentioned by SMP0328, the Affordable Care Act was an act of Congress. The legislative branch makes the laws. Obama simply signed it. Calling it "Obama's" is incredibly non-neutral, even if the law was created at his urging. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence you propose should be added. It's a significant ruling and neutral. I would have removed the two other attempts too, but not SMP0328's proposal. Dave Dial (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Three editors (SMP0328, DD2K, HiLo48) state that the 3 sentence version is too long. Preference appears to be for a one sentence version. The one sentence version presented by SMP0328 is meant to end the paragraph starting with the words, "The law faced several legal challenges, primarily based on...," which after the proposed added sentence should probably read as "The law faced several legal challenges, one of which was based on..." Then the one sentence addition of SMP0328 could be added to the end of that paragraph as: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Supreme Court ruled to limit part of the health care mandate, under the RFRA, and to allow for-profit corporations to be exempt from...(rest of User:SMP0328 wording). If such a one sentence version is closer to agreement then I am for supporting it. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

- I think the last line of that section should be: "Obama signed the bill into law on March 23, 2010." Everything after that should be deleted, because (a) it exists in other articles (to which this article links), and (b) it concerns the legislation and not Barack Obama specifically. Again, this is a summary style article, and we must strive for the concise. This is just one of several sections where topics have been expanded into too much detail. Moreover, this SCOTUS ruling is a narrowly-specified event. It only impacts the employees of closely-held companies whose owners have religious objections, which is a small number of Americans compared to the scope of the ACA itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * President Obama fought for the passage of the ACA. He did not merely sign the legislation. Even the President has occasionally referred to the law as "Obamacare". Do you believe President Obama has had little or no role in the implementation of the ACA? SMP0328. (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not. But the first part of that section is more than sufficient coverage in a summary style article. Anything beyond that should be decanted into the Presidency of Barack Obama article and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. Covering the minutiae of one piece of legislation in this biography is excessive. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Accuracy of this closing paragraph in the Health care section should be consistent throughout in its coverage of judicial challenges. Hobby Lobby is receiving a majority weight recognition in the mainstream press as being a Landmark decision for the 2014 term. Referring to it as "minutiae" does not seem to fully recognize this. Support for a one sentence version of a Landmark decision as suggested by SMP0328 would accurately describe the Judicial response to the Health care legislation supported by Obama. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing my point entirely. It is a landmark decision for SCOTUS because it has far-reaching implications beyond healthcare, but in terms of the Obama presidency and the Affordable Care Act, it is a minor detail of little biographical significance. The SCOTUS decision about the individual mandate was a key decision for the entire Affordable Care Act that could've potentially ended the legislation and impacted millions and millions of Americans, whereas the Hobby Lobby decision only impacts a few thousand Americans working for a few religious fundamentalists. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The current tally appears to be 3 support for a one sentence version of the edit and 1 oppose. Obama as President of the executive branch means that he needs to be responsible for constant interaction with both other branches of government, the Judicial branch and the Legislative branch. A landmark decision for SCOTUS from the Judicial branch affecting the health care plan which President Obama signed onto appears justified for 3 editors for inclusion here. Unless new editors are added here on talk, it seems practical to suggest that the one sentence version be added now that several days have passed. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote. It's about reaching a meaningful consensus. Since this article is meant to be written from an historical perspective, there is no urgency whatsoever. Certainly there is no need for a veiled ultimatum. You have failed to address my points about the weight of what you are calling a landmark decision, and about the section being too detailed for a summary style biography in the first place. Again, I must point out that this will have very little impact on the Affordable Care Act, since we are talking about a tiny percentage of the Americans covered by the legislation. Seen from that historical perspective, I doubt very much this will be the Enormous Big Thing™ you are portraying it to be. Since we don't have the benefit of being able to peer into the future, it would seem we can afford to take our time and be cautious. Your additions have been twice reverted (yes, it's 3-2, not 3-1) so I expect there to be much more communication on this matter before any editing to the article takes place. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not a vote. Though it does reflect the general consensus over the past few days. No one is any longer supporting the 3 sentence version of this edit from several days ago. The general consensus appears to be that adding the one sentence version accurately reflects the state of the Health care reform following Hobby Lobby. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While it's not a vote, neither does any editor have a veto. Since all editors taking part in this discussion, except for Scjessey, believe a one-sentence explanation of Hobby Lobby belongs in this article, it is for Scjessey to move closer to the consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity. SMP0328. (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What, specifically, is being proposed? I'd have to see it in context. I'm sympathetic to the undue weight argument, as people often want to add a too-long description of the issue of the moment into the article. The Hobby Lobby decision may or may not be a major issue in health care insurance law, religious freedom, corporate powers, and so on, but it is only a modestly important event vis-a-vis the biography of the President because the nexus is limited. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal is for a one-sentence description of the Hobby Lobby decision coming immediately after the one-sentence description of the Sebelius decision. The ACA is personally linked with Obama, which is why supporters and opponents of the ACA commonly refer to it as "Obamacare". Because of that personal link, Supreme Court decisions regarding the ACA should be referenced in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a final version of the proposed sentence? I can't really form a meaningful opinion whether that's too long, too short, or just right without seeing the sentence. I know there's some talk of it earlier in the thread but it's not clear to me what the (approximate) language would be. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The last one sentence version being examined for addition as described above appears to be something like this, subject to further comment/update as needed: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Supreme Court ruled to limit part of the health care mandate, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and to allow for-profit corporations to be exempt from a Health and Human Services regulation adopted under the Affordable Care Act, requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A close call. On the one hand, that's too much real estate in proportion to the issue's significance to Obama's bio. On the other hand, omitting this case would render the paragraph's lead sentence misleading, "The law faced several legal challenges" (by omitting a significant legal challenge it could create the false impression that the article mentioned all the significant challenges). Here's my best attempt to shorten the description in a way while still suggesting what the case is about, and further, "In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Court ruled that for-profit corporations were exempt on religious grounds under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from regulations adopted under the ACA that would have required them to pay for insurance that covered certain contraceptives" (not: no need to include wikilinks for terms wikilinked earlier in the article. An alternative is to mention the case without describing it, e.g.: "The Court, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, exempted for-profit companies from covering contraceptives if the companies had religious objections." An interested reader can follow the link to learn more. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a close call, and the court didn't include any for profit corporation, only "closely held". However that is supposed to be defined. I can see the undue and the need to add. It really isn't a significant ruling in the bog picture. Dave Dial (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidemon and Dave Dial - What of my thoughts about the section being too long already? Much of this doesn't seem biographically significant to me. - Scjessey (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The enhanced version of the one sentence Hobby Lobby edit following option one from User:Wikidemon appears to be the following for current comment/updating:


 * In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Court ruled that "closely-held" for-profit corporations could be exempt on religious grounds under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from regulations adopted under the PPACA that would have required them to pay for insurance that covered certain contraceptives.


 * Following the edit suggestion made, the acronym used is PPACA for Patient Protection and ACA which is the full name of the Act to which a link has also been added. The previous paragraphs in the Health care section can also use the same acronym to save word space there as well. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need to "save word space". It isn't the number of words that is causing the undue weight, but rather the fact that we are considering covering it at all. This is simply the wrong article for this level of detail. In any case, the sentence is inaccurate because it fails to say "closely-held". It currently gives the impression that all for-profit corporations could have religious exemption grounds. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The current support-oppose summary appears to be 5 support for a one sentence version of the edit and 1 oppose. This is the latest version of the one sentence edit: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Court ruled that "closely-held" for-profit corporations could be exempt on religious grounds under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from regulations adopted under the PPACA that would have required them to pay for insurance that covered certain contraceptives. Unless new editors are added here on talk, it seems practical to suggest that the one sentence version be added after another day or two. There were over one thousand editors who examined it yesterday (see page count for Talk here) and the next day or two should give them or any other editor an opportunity to make any further suggestions/upgrades as needed for the one sentence edit. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you haven't offered a compelling reason why we need to go to so much detail about an obscure detail impacting a tiny fraction of Americans. Once again, you have set an ultimatum with an arbitrary time limit. You do not have a consensus for your addition, despite your fudged voting numbers. You've completely ignored my suggestion that the section be cut down, rather than made even more detailed and redundant. I shall revert your edit and I will expect you to seek a proper consensus instead of acting so inappropriately. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Undid revision 617857598. This editor is not familiar with the principle of 1 editor reverting against 4 editors who are in consensus on Talk page. You are required to make consensus on Talk prior to reverts by Wikipedia policy. You have no support on Talk. No-one knows which Wikipedia rules you are applying to revert against 4 editors who have spoken plainly on the topic. You may start with the following four editors:


 * (1) ThisEditor: The majority weight in the mainstream press is that Hobby Lobby is a landmark decision of SCOTUS.
 * (2) Wikidemon: The final edit chosen was that presented by editor (2) directly above as a shorter version of the one sentence edit.
 * (3) DD2K: It is a landmark decision.
 * (4) SMP0328. You are a single editor lacking consensus and it is up to you to come closer to consensus.


 * You are drawing attention to yourself as to what rules of Wikipedia you are using to revert against 4 editors who are in general agreement on this edit and whom you are opposing. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's painfully obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Your Wikipedia inexperience, and inexperience on this topic in particular, is probably to blame here. We have a longstanding policy of seeking a proper consensus on this talk page before making controversial edits to this article. If you'd spent the better part of 7 years editing this article and contributing to hundreds and hundreds of consensus building discussion here, I'm sure you would see your mistake. You are claiming you have the support of other editors, but looking back on this discussion that is not clear at all. You have also ignored other editors who support my view. Repeatedly stating things does not somehow give them more weight. Consider the following:
 * While there is no doubt that Hobby Lobby is a "landmark decision" for SCOTUS, it is most certainly not a significant biographical detail for Barack Obama. You have repeatedly ignored this incredibly obvious fact. In fact, it can be argued that it is not even that significant for the Affordable Care Act; however, I have repeatedly stated that it is worthy of inclusion in both Presidency of Barack Obama and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
 * Wikidemon expressed a preference for the shorter text over the longer text. He has yet to comment on whether or not it should be there at all, or if (as I think) the section is already too long and detailed for a summary style biography.
 * The same can be said for DD2K and SMP0328.
 * This discussion has not concluded. You have, once again, jumped the gun. You have ignored WP:CONSENSUS, WP:3RR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SS and other policies and guidelines. You should self-revert and let this discussion play out the way they have always done. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to trivial to mention. The reason the decision is notable in reliable sources is that it may allow fundamentalists exemption from other federal laws, as yet undetermined, but that has little to do with executive powers.  TFD (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, TFD. The notable part of this ruling isn't actually biographically relevant at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What is relevant is that the ACA, one of Obama's pieces of signature legislation, has faced numerous court challenges and has among some favorable outcomes received a number of adverse rulings and some division among the federal circuit courts. We should either attempt a summary, briefly list all significant ones, or say that we are listing a few examples. It would be most helpful to readers in my opinion to either list them all, however briefly, or point to a place that does. The present introductory sentence, "the law faced several legal challenges", followed by an incomplete list, could easily be misinterpreted to suggest that the list is complete. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you not thing the section is already too long? I feel strongly that the legal challenges et al should be confined to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and/or Presidency of Barack Obama. Legal challenges to legislation aren't really of any biographical significance. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this - I also think this section is getting too long and this material is not biographically significant. This belongs in the ACA article for sure, and makes sense to have it in the Presidency article too, as it does have an impact on his Presidency, but not on his life. The legislation itself obviously belongs here but not all of the details about the legal challenges. Pointers suffice. Tvoz / talk 03:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Senate votes to sue Obama
Reported by the BBC, Obama becomes the first president to be sued by the Senate. Possibly an ITN-worthy development, but this is well outside my field of expertise, so will leave this for those better qualified than I am to decide. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The action is from the House of Representatives, not the Senate. The article gives no indication of what real impact this will have. It will be important to get impartial reports on this. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, this was only a vote to sue. Obama has yet to actually be sued. Also, this will have no impact whatsoever because even if the suit goes forward, he will already be out of office by the time anything comes to fruition. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which probably will lead to the lawsuit being dropped. as I agree with what the American president said on this. That it was just people wanting to get attention. Like the whole filibuster temporary boom that did nothing. NathanWubs (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Certificate of Live Birth
On Obama's Certificate of Live Birth (which does differ from a birth certificate), it says he was born in Hawaii. There are no cites on this page to where he was born from or certificate of live birth pictures on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.38.84 (talk • contribs)
 * Look closer. There are three cites in the opening sentence of the body. --Neil N  talk to me 17:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Cites
Many of the cites on this page link to commercial websites or propaganda news sites. Preferably on wikipedia, .edu or .org would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.38.84 (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The connection you make between TLD's and quality is misguided. Anyone can get an org domain and edu websites are filled with undergrad (or lower) work. Focus on the source, not the website name. --Neil N  talk to me 17:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there any particular cites that you consider problematic? Also if you do can you provide a detailed reason as to why you have an issue with them?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Important information
Obama referred to his appearance and that of Angela Merkel in his speech in Berlin on 19/6/2013. This should be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.147.16 (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He also mentioned the heat at the same time. This is easy to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.147.16 (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Something tells me this isn't important enough to warrant inclusion within the article on B.O. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Whenever a section on an article talk page is called "important information", it almost certainly isn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories article is to be referred to. But the problem is not in his Moslem faith according to the Shariah law, even though he can be called a Christian according to the US church law. Clare Lopez, the CIA operative for 20 years, explained that in opinion of both her and many US Congress members Obama had switched sides in war on terror, recruiting jihadists in his administration  http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/cia-expert-obama-switchedsides-in-war-on-terror/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.71.11.81 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WND - oh yeah, there's a reliable source. Yeah... Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is independent resource
Dear users. This is very important part in the biography of the US president Barack Obama: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/10/obama-america-should-be-ashamed-of-gun-violence/ (Obama: America should be ‘ashamed’ of gun violence). Currently exists situation, when Wikipedia can lose the independence (the National Rifle Association not must govern here). Very bad precedent can be created (we not must let this). I ask to place the info of the source above - in the article about the US president (it is part of his biography - I do the accent on this important moment). Thank you. The article has lock (I can not do it self). Fully relevant information (for this article more of all). - 95.29.159.146 (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC).
 * Stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. --Neil N  talk to me 19:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC) More info about the user's soapboxing here --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Photoshopped photo is in this article. Vulgar content in the picture.
I was perusing this article and I clicked on a picture that is in the article that shows President Obama signing the Affordable Health Care Act. I noticed that the picture has been clearly altered. The man in the row on the far left (at the beginning of the row) watching the President sign the Act has been made to appear as if his hands are holding his naked genitals. He is pictured as having two right arms.... one arm down at his side and one with his arm in front of him. It looks like a piece of a separate picture has been edited into this picture. 96.24.134.133 (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Carla Greene 96.24.134.133 (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really: there is a teleprompter in front of the person on the left, partly obscuring his clasped hands.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Obama's page
Why do you have Hillary Clinton as succeeding Obama as president of the U.S.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.166.11 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone put it there and immediately removed it. It's gone now.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

7.1 Historical evaluations
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/16/us/politics/gop-gains-strength-and-obama-gets-low-marks-poll-finds.html?_r=0 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/09/obama-hits-a-new-low-for-leadership-with-criticism-on-isis-immigration-alike/ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/16/us/politics/18EARLYPOLL-DOC.html full poll

I think there should be at least a sentence added on how the Presidents approval ratings are now reaching GWB levels. The fact that his numbers are so low are historically newsworthy, therefore should be included into the encyclopedia.

"In September 2014, A New York Times/CBS News nation wide poll that was conducted from Sept 12 to 15 on landlines and cellphones with 1,009 adults of whom 854 were registered to vote, showed that Obama had a 40% overall job approval rating. Breaking down into 40% for the Economy, 34% for Foreign Policy, and 41% for Terrorism." Robertvincentswain (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's far too early for any historical evaluation. A poll like that is classic recentism. And that sample size is far too small. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See: Presidency of Barack Obama and/or United States presidential approval rating. 2600:1006:B011:BA79:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sure this can eventually go somewhere, in context. But GWB levels? That may be a blurb to get hits, but -10 net approval isn't the -34 net approval GWB was getting in May of 2006. Nor is it close to the -46(25-71) GWB had in October of 2008. Dave Dial (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest to make this an unbiased article, that the "Historical evaluations" portion be removed. Due to current modern thinking, if there is no current information noting the trending un-approval rating of the President, than there should be none, i.e, no polling data as already agreed upon in previous discussions.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_78#Should_Polling_Data_be_included.3F)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertvincentswain (talk • contribs) 22:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of polling being put into article, but the section you removed was based on historians and scholars. Not that I am a big fan of that being in this article either(at this time), but it's not the same thing as approval/disapproval ratings. Also, there really isn't a trend of disapproval. Obama has almost never had a diapproval higher than 55%, and his term average approval rating is 48%. Which is 1% higher than the average for all 2nd term Presidents at this point in their 2nd terms. So I'm not seeing the significance in that for this article. Dave Dial (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2014
Jonetan minale (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC) was black


 * African-American is the 21st-century term of choice. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Best Economic President In Modern Times??
Did you see this (?) - http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/06/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/. It is based on Forbes's report. Does this information worth to be written here in the article ? M.Karelin (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For such assessment I think it's better to wait until the President's term is finished. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "problem" is that Forbes DID NOT wait untill January 2017 and published named Report already. M.Karelin (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs to wait. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it needs a source other than the original article. Robertvincentswain (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is a secondary source (because the primary source is the Forbes's report by itselfe). So why we need other source ???? 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not what I meant...I should've said that I would source the Forbes article instead of the one at addictinginfo. Robertvincentswain (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In any event, the economic data chart needs to be updated from its current 2013 endpoint. 74.66.19.35 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's difficult to do when 2014 is not yet over for data to exist, let alone be collected and analyzed. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think this should be added into the discussion. While he may turn out to be the most economically successful president in recent history, because of the way the economy works, and how history works for that matter, Barack Obama's success and his impact on the economy will not be fully known for some time after he leaves office.Amcorbe (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing about Crimea crisis
Did you notice that there is NOTHING in the article about Crimea crisis and Obama's role (reaction) on it? Is not it important thing (?) (the main International event on 2014). M.Karelin (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not an important event in the life of Barack Obama. Moreover, it is not the main international event of 2014 (Ebola and ISIS are vying for that spot). Sorry, but it just doesn't make the cut. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ebola and ISIS are more important then Crimea crisis? Really? M.Karelin (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really have to ask that...? --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Crimea is one component of the larger Eastern Ukraine/Ukraine/Russia crisis going on that certainly has importance, and possible long term implications with EU/West-Russia relations. That said, as a 2014 international event, it is one with two principle direct actors, Ukraine and Russia. Others may have some words to say or the occasional economic sanction, but that's about it in terms of direct action. Ebola affects more nations directly, and has far more international and global involvement. ISIS has more still, with direct military action from more than a dozen countries spread across the Middle East, Europe, North America, etc. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of not making the cut. This is an article about a living person and so must be focused on Obama's life. Crimea might be relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama article. SMP0328. (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I did notice that, and also there is no mention of the Crimea River invasion. Though I do agree it's better mentioned in the Presidency article, until it's clearly significant for a personal bio. Dave Dial (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless the USA is in the habit of sticking its nose in other people's business, problems in Crimea have nothing to do with it or its president. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The USA is in that habit, yes, although more charitably it could be called dealing with hot issues elsewhere in the world when it suits American interests and the local and regional powers are either unable to help or part of the problem. The interest for the US and rest of the world would be to check Russian nationalism and expansionism, and to avoid the potential of it becoming a wider European conflict. The point isn't that it is not an issue for the US, but that it is not specifically a huge issue for the US in comparison with a number of other international matters, nor is it directly related so far to the biography of the President. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And if Putin ever does attempt to 'reacquire the Ukraine', Crimea could be seen as sort of a Sudetenland of the situation by many. But right now, we don't have a crystal ball. Nobody knows for sure if Putin will try to move and expand Russia, or if there is sufficient opposition in Russia and other parts of Europe. In the eyes of many USA people, somebody else should start 'smacking hands' in these situations. Dave Dial (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, even if this turns into Sudetenland, it is not appropriate for this biography - an article about  Obama's whole life - unless something happens about the event and  specifically Obama's response to it. Yes, maybe the article about the presidency. Tvoz / talk 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Article too long...
Article is 255k today, takes 20 seconds to load it. Would anyone please condense the article, in any way? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Up at the top of this page is a FAQ section. If you expand that, question #10 addresses article length. The article is at the upper limit of recommended article length, and occasionally the massive number of templates, categories, etc., causes a speed problem either at the server end or for your device. The problem is that there isn't much that can be cut out, in fact it's all we can do to keep up with events by adding new material and trying to find something to shorten or remove. Wikipedia is not optimized for extremely low internet speeds but there may be some viewers or mobile apps that are. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Took about 7 seconds for me, and I live in a rural area with poor internet speeds. Browser issue? --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Community Organizer Label
The term has been so often used as a disparagement to the specific subject of the article that it is hardly NPOV anymore. Usually put in scare quotes to suggest to certain NPOV parties that somehow the work was illegitimate or even nefarious. Vote to re-label section "Non-profit work and Harvard Law School." "Non-profit" is wholly accurate and there could hardly be a more neutral term. The fact that the label is repeated three times in a short paragraph provides evidence that the intent of the authors is a covert labelling (smear) mechanism instead of plain bad writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.13.90 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more. The term is used in this article because it was used extensively by reliable sources, and by Barack Obama himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto Scjessey. Community organizer is exactly right and not at all disparaging in our article. That some extremists use it disparagingly is not relevant here - they disparage all kinds of normal usage. Tvoz / talk 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Bias about his house
Current version

Applying the proceeds of a book deal, the family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to a $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood, Chicago.[351] The purchase of an adjacent lot—and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer, campaign donor and friend Tony Rezko—attracted media attention because of Rezko's subsequent indictment and conviction on political corruption charges that were unrelated to Obama.[352]

This is biased.

A biased version the other way could read: Obama is evil. He and corrupt Rezko had a deal for his house. Rezko was subsequently indicted.

A neutral version should improve on the following...

1. I do not see in the references that the book deal paid for the house. Who made that determination? The reference says the book deal paid for law school and campaign costs. Conclusion: FALSE INFORMATION IN WIKIPEDIA

2. There is no mention of the facts of the controversy, that the price was a special deal that Rezko offered. At least, that's what the (#352) reference says.

 Possible better version

The Obama family moved in 2005 from a Hyde Park, Chicago condominium to a $1.6 million house in neighboring Kenwood, Chicago.[351] The purchase of an adjacent lot—and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer, campaign donor and friend Tony Rezko—attracted media attention because of the price that Rezko sold it to Obama, which Obama called a "boneheaded" "mistake" and Rezko's subsequent indictment and conviction on political corruption charges that were unrelated to Obama.[352]

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Claus (talk • contribs)


 * Or, we could just cut it all out. This article is meant to be written from an historical perspective. And now we know, years later, that this Rezko thing was a NothingBurger that nobody gives a shit about. So how about we just remove it completely? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a good argument for eliminating or condensing the Rezko controversy stuff, which was typical partisan attack fodder that had little impact on a long-ago election, much less Obama's life or career. The book's income transforming him and family from scrappy lower middle class to fairly well off is probably biographically significant but we do need a better source that this is how he paid for the house. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When President Obama called himself "boneheaded" this is a very significant moment. I can remember only three times in his life where this is reported. One of those 3 times is debatable, because he used a different word. Sam Claus (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If we are looking at "little impact" there are other things with less impact. These might include On June 7, 2008, Clinton ended her campaign and endorsed Obama.[102] because President Obama would be president no matter what Hillary did., also Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute.[3, a minor part time job, also 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.[143][144] which is just what the administration did as President Obama did not make this a signature PERSONAL action, also On March 11, 2009, Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls, which forms part of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, having been established by Executive Order 13506 with a broad mandate to advise him on issues relating to the welfare of American women and girls.[165 which is very minor and of questionable need to be in the article. Sam Claus (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the history of these two contributors, they seem to support a positive view of President Obama. Therefore, this should not be done. Instead, Wikipedia should have a neutral view.

From a historical perspective, it was significant during that year of President Obama's life.

@Wikidemon, did you see proof in that reference that the house was paid for by the book money? I think it is false information or information with no reference. Sam Claus (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Rezko incident is significant because it showed that President Obama was not a corrupt politician, just like Nixon was innocent during the Checkers incident. However, President Obama realized that it looked bad and admitted it was boneheaded. He did not try to stonewall and not answer questions. Sam Claus (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My contribution history is fine; my approach to editing articles that relate to politics is avoiding treating the subject of partisan claims as encyclopedic material, and only reporting the controversies they stir up to the extent the controversies themselves are noteworthy, suitably sourced, and of due relevance to the subject of the article. I do not edit the Nixon article, but that would be a good case in point. That article does not spend much time discussing that Nixon had a secret but legal fund for supporters to pay his political expenses, or that he received a dog as a gift in possible violation of campaign rules, but rather that he made a speech about it that was considered masterful and saved his political career. Likewise, if the fact that Rezko sold Obama a house is relevant it is not because a person named Rezko who happened to be corrupt and convicted later of a felony happened to sell him a house, but that Obama's relationship with Rezko became a minor political campaign issue. That fact does not seem terribly significant or relevant to Obama's life and career so it's on the fence whether it should be mentioned at all here. Clinton's conceding the election is vastly more significant, as is his employment history, where he lived, his family, and so on. But articles are not written by the logical fallacy that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If something else here is not worth mentioning then we should consider that separately. As I said, the assertion that money from the book paid for the house is unsourced. It seems more likely than not to be true, and it is uncontroversial. Hence, it can remain while editors here look for a source. If the sources say it is not true or if no sources can be found, that statement should be removed. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would argue that most (though not all) of the campaign-related stuff should be in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, not here. The campaign is nowhere near as historically significant as what followed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacy of first term / Evaluations of first term
This edit was settled by agreement of over 5 editors for including the academic review of Obama's completed first term on the basis of other President pages who have completed at least one term having comparable assessment sections included on their pages. User:TBSchemer was apparently a one editor hold-out against at least 5 opposing editors, and then withdrew his edit after a week or two of back-and-forth. Now TBSchemer has returned for a second bite at the apple to delete the section. Pinging to all involved editors for response/opinion. Is the deletion warranted for material assessing the completed first term and posted for the last 7 months. FelixRosch  ( TALK ) 17:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the link to the original version of the discussion at Archive #78, Section #36 here:  FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 21:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is completely inappropriate for you to make this a personal battle by invoking my name in a Talk section header and trying to rally certain editors together against me for the sake of a grudge.
 * Secondly, a casual browsing of the archive you posted below shows very clearly that I was not the only editor who felt this section should be deleted. Editors, , , all expressed favor for deletion of this section in the archive you have posted below.
 * Third, I was not | the one who ultimately deleted this section.
 * Finally, this section has been stable for over a month without this particularly disruptive subsection. Your choice to add it back in, and furthermore, to wage an overly-personal war of edits and words, threatens to destabilize this article once again. The text that you have attempted to add back in represents a single POV from a very narrow point in time, yet presents itself as an enduring analysis. All previous attempts to make the section more neutral by making it an unbiased presentation of multiple perspectives, or to update the section to reflect more current analyses were rejected by you and other editors. Hence, adding this section back in will not resolve anything, and will only reignite a war that was laid to rest through deletion.
 * TBSchemer (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding the use of your name in the thread header. Such use violates civility policy and so I have removed your name from this header. SMP0328. (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * @SMP0328 has restored the original version of the section title which should assist the other editors to remember the discussion. Your comments at that time were somewhat pointed and ended with this exchange:


 * (cur | prev) 02:18, 19 April 2014‎ TBSchemer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,322 bytes) (+1,062)‎ . . (→‎Legacy of first term / Evaluations of first term: Okay, the "polarization" poll shouldn't be in the article.) (undo)


 * (cur | prev) 23:01, 18 April 2014‎ HiLo48 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,260 bytes) (+277)‎ . . (→‎Legacy of first term / Evaluations of first term: The fact that Obama is black is a major polarising factor) (undo)


 * This was followed by your withdrawal of your edit and withdrawal from further discussion. The issue is that this current assessment is not a poll like the ones which you were inserting at that time against consensus. The assessments in the current edit here for Obama's first term are assessments by leading scholars of Obama's first term, which is comparable to what is done for all other Presidents. It is not a public opinion poll and its inclusion lists multiple Supporting editors below. FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 22:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly makes someone a "leading scholar of Obama's first term"? There is no certification or degree that makes one American's opinion about a president's overall quality, or his "imagination, communication ability and intelligence" more important than any other American's opinion. Every American's opinion matters when it comes to judging a president. Cherry-picked polls with cherry-picked samples like that just only represent a very limited perspective, and people who prefer that perspective were viciously defending it against any NPOV improvements. As several editors made clear in the archived discussion, such a subjective analysis probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. But if a section like this is to be even remotely acceptable, it needs to be well-balanced from the start, it needs to make use of national polls (and their accompanying analyses), and it needs to represent the trends throughout the presidency, rather than just focusing on obsolete analyses from a single point in time. The text that you've resurrected doesn't meet any of these criteria.
 * TBSchemer (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, 'several editors' agreed not to have this in this article, at this time. We do not agree with your distorted views on Presidential scholars and historians, and that silly 'polls' should take precedence over expert evaluations. Which means, you get your way, but not because we agree with you. Dave Dial (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the foundation of compromise- finding common solutions that we can agree on, even if we're each trying to address very different problems from very different angles. TBSchemer (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That was not your position when you gave up your edit during your original objection period which you withdrew. There was nothing cherry-picked in this assessment which reads as follows:


 * Legacy of first term
 * A 2010 Siena poll of 238 Presidential scholars found that the current president, Obama was ranked 15th out of 43, with high ratings for imagination, communication ability and intelligence and a low rating for background (family, education and experience). In 2011, through the agency of its United States Presidency Centre (USPC), the Institute for the Study of the Americas (located in the University of London’s School of Advanced Study) released the first ever U.K. academic survey to rate U.S. presidents. They also gave an interim assessment of Barack Obama, but his unfinished presidency was not included in the survey though he attained eighth place overall. In 2012, Newsweek magazine asked a panel of historians to rank the ten best presidents since 1900. The results showed that historians had ranked, in reverse chronological order, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt as the best since that year. A 2013 History News Network poll of 203 American historians, when asked to rate Barack Obama's presidency on an A-F scale, gave him a B- grade. Obama, whom historians graded using 15 separate measures plus an overall grade, was rated most highly in the categories of communication ability, integrity, and crisis management, and most poorly for his relationship with Congress and transparency and accountability. 


 * The reference to "238 Presidential scholars" is substantially different than random polls taken on street corners. This assessment of the completed first term is justified for inclusion in the First term legacy section on the basis of every other president having a comparable assessment by scholars included on each President article on Wikipedia. Your removal of it appears to be without rhyme or reason. FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 16:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was still my opinion, and the opinion of several other editors that this section should not exist without a complete overhaul. I withdrew one particular addition to the section, not the larger point that this section is horribly subjective and POV due to cherry-picking. I actually didn't realize back in April that you had just created that section 2 days before I came to the page and noticed how POV it was. In that case, there was never any consensus to add that section in the first place, and the "last stable version" of the article was always the version without that section.
 * But let's stop focusing on the past and try to figure out a way to move forward. The problem with the proposed text is those sources give no reason to believe that those "Presidential scholars" or historians or biographers are giving anything other than their personal political opinions. The personal political opinions of 238 selected scholars is not news, is not encyclopaedic information, and is not worthy of inclusion. On the other hand, the President's job is to serve the entire country, so national opinion polls are relevant to the President's legacy. If you wanted to have a section that uses scientific, national polls (and their accompanying analyses) from established polling organizations to discuss how Americans view Obama's legacy, I would be happy to support that effort.
 * TBSchemer (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

[long cut-and-paste of April 2014 discussion redacted because it will mess up indexing, among other things - Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)]


 * After this, User:TBSchemer appeared to withdraw his edit with his edit history page comment and left the matter alone for awhile. Now he has apparently returned for another bite at the apple to delete the subsection again. FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 17:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you re-added the section, claiming a consensus which doesn't exist. And looking at history, it was you who added it in the first place back in April when it was subsequently heavily modified by other editors. Going back to the discussion, those editors who expressed a clear opinion on your addition: TBSchemer, JoeSperrazza, Dave Dial, Wikidemon - remove. FelixRosch, HiLo48, Scjessey(?) - keep. Apologies in advance if I have attributed an incorrect opinion. Felix, you don't get to cherry pick editors' !votes and claim consensus. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not an accurate history of this edit nor of the withdrawal by User:TBSchemer of the objection originally made against the edit. User:TBSchemer comments at that time were somewhat pointed and ended with this exchange after which his objection and edit were withdrawn by him:


 * (cur | prev) 02:18, 19 April 2014‎ TBSchemer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,322 bytes) (+1,062)‎ . . (→‎Legacy of first term / Evaluations of first term: Okay, the "polarization" poll shouldn't be in the article.) (undo)


 * (cur | prev) 23:01, 18 April 2014‎ HiLo48 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,260 bytes) (+277)‎ . . (→‎Legacy of first term / Evaluations of first term: The fact that Obama is black is a major polarising factor) (undo)


 * This was followed by his withdrawal of his edit and withdrawal from further discussion. My list of editors were of those in agreement that User:TBSchemer was in error when TBSchemer withdrew his edit. FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 16:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Who are you saying supported this edit? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You may start at the 18 April 2014 edit of HiLo48 referenced directly above, and then read through the large number of reverts on the edit history page by TBSchemer and all the editors who were trying to keep him from forcing his deletion of the material. About a half dozen editors Supporting to keep the section. FelixRosch   ( TALK ) 21:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did and came up with the list above. Please stop evading my question and specifically name the "more than five editors" you are referring to in this edit summary. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Obama....the first African-American President ... really?
Please, stop referring to Obama as African-American and to him being the first African-American President. First, Obama is NOT African-American, he is half white and half African-American, and second, it might be of the Democrats interest to be able to make the claim of first African-American president, but it is not the truth. I am African-American and I find it an insult to refer to Obama as being of my race and heritage.2001:5B0:2DFF:2EF0:0:0:0:3E (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Kat Dollase
 * Please see the answer to question 2 in the FAQ section at the top of this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * While not everybody agree about how African-American should be defined, I´ve never come across a definition that says that Barack Obama, Sr. is African-American and Barack Hussein Obama II is not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Because Pres Obama's father was not an American in the slightest. --Somchai Sun (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree (well, he lived there for awhile), but the OP states that Obama Jr is "half African-American". Nevermind, it´s not important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, so long as the OP is comfortable claiming ownership of African-American racial identity, then I'm sure he/she will appreciate that Wiki defers to however people self-describe, which is "African American," in Obama's case.  (PS, why does this one issue generate such perpetual intense pearl-clutching among O detractors???). AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Many groups are referred to by their ethnicity and or nationality and "race", and oftentimes, if there are multiple of these, they will be referred to by that which is more in the minority. In the United States, there are less African Americans than whites. I'm sure he'd be the first "white" president if all the U.S. presidents and the founders had been from Africa. Dustin ( talk ) 04:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * ...and if 40 years ago it was impossible to conceive of there ever being a white president. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Obama is a Mulatto. A person of mixed white and black ancestry, especially one having one white and one black parent. Source of definition is Yahoo's dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDirty68 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Climate Change
Obama's Climate Change deal with Xi Jinping should have a place on this page either in the Environmental or Foreign Policy section. It might even deserve a place in the opening paragraphs as I'd argue its the biggest foreign policy accomplishment of his second term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanks27th (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Unjustified attack on President Obama by the media for gum chewing. Also wikipedia coverage of his smoking.
Smoking is legal. Smoking in children is bad but smoking in adults is completely legal. Wikipedia should never (and I am not saying it does) try to make smoking good or bad.

Now for the President Obama part....

Current version Obama tried to quit smoking several times, sometimes using nicotine replacement therapy, and, in early 2010, Michelle Obama said that he had successfully quit smoking.[359][360]

This is not bad at all. However, it tells the half story. The fact is that President Obama is on nicotine gum therapy. This is well reported. He was even chewing nicotine gum in China recently, which he was savagely attacked for chewing gum. This attack was unjustified because he was chewing nicotine gum, not regular chewing gum.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/06/12/obama-still-chewing-nicotine-gum

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/obama-tobacco-free-but-still-chews-nicotine-gum-doctor-says/

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/president-obama-health-107797.html

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/19/obama-on-nicorette-use-im-not-a-purist/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/12/president-obama-is-healthy-and-occasionally-uses-nicotine-gum-doc-says/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-spotted-popping-piece-nicorette-gum-white-house-ceremony-article-1.1399370

Better version... Obama tried to quit smoking several times and, in early 2010, Michelle Obama said that he had successfully quit smoking[359][360] though he continues to use nicotine gum.(add some of these references)

Illinois State Senator (1997–2004) - elected in 1996
There is this information in article:

Heading: As Illinois State Senator (1997–2004)

... Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 ...

It's confusing to me. If he was elected in 1996, why heading contains that he was senator from 1997? Does it mean he was elected in 96 but started in function in 97? This probably should be clarified somehow. Petrb (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming he was elected in a traditional election (not a special election), he would have been elected in November 1996, and then sworn in January 1997. I don't think that really needs to be stated in the article, as that is how the electoral process for federal level seats works in the US. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OuroborosCobra got it right. There's the date you are "voted in" and the date that you "take office". WP seems to show politician's dates by the dates that they were in office. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014
One of President Obama’s biggest goals since taking over presidency in 2008 was to fix the broken immigration system. Today, there are about 11 million undocumented individuals in the United States. President Obama has urged congress to come up with a comprehensive immigration reform to give undocumented individuals a pathway to citizenship. This process would include “passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally”. President Obama’s plan also calls for continued “efforts in securing the nations borders and to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants”. Ultimately, he’s trying give any undocumented individual, who’s not a criminal, an opportunity in the United States while securing down all borders from people who are trying to come here illegally. However, since President Obama has taken office, more than two million undocumented immigrants have been deported. /misplaced_priorities_march_2014.pdf|website=Immigration Policy|accessdate=11 December 2014}} Not all of these individuals had a criminal conviction. Under the Obama administration, Congress has been at work on fixing the broken immigrant system, but have yet to come up with a solution. They have reintroduced and revised the DREAM ACT bill multiplies times in 2009, 2010, and 2011. None of them passed. They have also created a bipartisanship comprehensive immigration reform bill, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, which the House of Representative still hasn’t act on. However the Obama administration have come up with a temporary solution, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, for young undocumented immigrants and undocumented parents of a U.S citizens or legal permanent residents. Since taking over in 2008, President Obama, the House of Representative, and the Senate have yet come up with an agreement for a comprehensive immigration reform bill to fix the nation’s broken immigration system.

Frankthetankx4 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With phrases like "have yet come up with an agreement for a comprehensive immigration reform bill to fix the nation’s broken immigration system." your text reads like an editorial. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dead/Not dead refs
How come refs 2, 26, 33, 67, 130, 132, 139, 190, 198, 259, 277, 290, and 150-152 are marked as deadurl=yes while in reality they are not?--Mishae (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Honors
See also: List of things named after Barack Obama It was announced in April 2014 that the Barack Obama College Preparatory High School will open in Chicago, Illinois in 2017.[369]

Presidential library
The deadline for bids for the Obama library was set for June 16, 2014, with several major bids originating in the city of Chicago.[370] Among the leading bids proposed for the competition were proposals from the University of Chicago, the University of Illinois at Chicago, Columbia University in New York and the University of Hawaii.[371]

Discussion
Is it really appropriate to have a section for the legacy of a president who hasn't even left office yet? Once he leaves office, information on his presidential library (or his overall place in history, for that matter) may be included. But considering the fact that he hasn't left office yet, along with the fact the school that was supposed to be named for him mentioned in the article is no longer being named for him, it seems that it is still too soon for there to be anything noteworthy to be included in such a section.--Joker123192 (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm reinstating it. There's nothing wrong with included a list of stuff named after him and a brief mention of plans for his presidential library. -- Calidum  06:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It does sound a little odd to have a legacy section about somebody who's still around, doesn't it? I agree with Joker123192, the two items there, a high school named after him and the bidding process on the Presidential Library, seem too trivial for this article. The library itself may be notable and will probably end up in this article once it's designed and built, but the selection process is completely unremarkable and biographically unimportant. A single high school named after him is also unimportant with respect to his bio (important with respect to the high school of course) — but if Joker123192 is right, it's completely trivial. Also, if we do find enough significant stuff to populate this section we should come up with a better heading than 'Legacy'. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Get rid of this section for the time being. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That section should be removed. There's too much trivial information in it and it's premature. After Obama leaves office leaves office a Post-presidency section will be added, as has been done with other Presidential BLPs, and that section deal with Obama's legacy. SMP0328. (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014
Family Life He met Michelle Obama when they were among the few African American at their law firm, Sidley Austin. Their relationship started with a Business lunch and then a community organization meeting where she first impressed her. The couple first date was to the spike Lee movie Do the right thing. Then they got married in October 1992, and had two daughters name Malia Ann (born, 1998) and Natasha (known as Sasha, born 2001. After the election to the US Senate, the Obama family continued to live on Chicago’s South Side, choosing to remain there rather than moving to Washington, D.C. despite their family obligation and career, they continue to attempt to schedule date night while they lived in Chicago. Their daughter attended the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, a private school. Malia and Sasha now attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington, after also considering Georgetown Day School. Michelle said in one of her interview on The Ellen DeGeneres Show that they do not intend to have any more children. Barack Obama wife Michelle mother has moved into the white house to assist with child care.ref

Haideecruz (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to have the exact text in both articles. What is here is sufficient. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 06:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

CHANGE:

Health care reform


Obama called for Congress to pass legislation reforming health care in the United States, a key campaign promise and a top legislative goal.ref name health reform He proposed an expansion of health insurance coverage to cover the uninsured, to cap premium increases, and to allow people to retain their coverage when they leave or change jobs. His proposal was to spend $900 billion over 10 years and include a government insurance plan, also known as the public option, to compete with the corporate insurance sector as a main component to lowering costs and improving quality of health care. It would also make it illegal for insurers to drop sick people or deny them coverage for pre-existing conditions, and require every American to carry health coverage. The plan also includes medical spending cuts and taxes on insurance companies that offer expensive plans.The New York Times-ObamaObama will hedge on public option-Politico

On July 14, 2009, House Democratic leaders introduced a 1,017-page plan for overhauling the U.S. health care system, which Obama wanted Congress to approve by the end of 2009.health reform-Lynn Sweet After much public debate during the Congressional summer recess of 2009, Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress on September 9 where he addressed concerns over the proposals.CNN CNN-Archive In March 2009, Obama lifted a ban on using federal funds for stem cell research.Stem cell-Guardian

TO:

Health care reform


In March 2009, Obama lifted a ban on using federal funds for stem cell research.Stem cell-Guardian

On July 14, 2009, House Democratic leaders introduced a 1,017-page plan for overhauling the U.S. health care system, which Obama wanted Congress to approve by the end of 2009.health reform-Lynn Sweet

On July 22, 2009, Obama called for Congress to pass legislation reforming health care in the United States, a key campaign promise and a top legislative goal. He proposed an expansion of health insurance coverage to cover the uninsured, to cap premium increases, and to allow people to retain their coverage when they leave or change jobs. His proposal was to spend $900 billion over 10 years and include a government insurance plan, also known as the public option, to compete with the corporate insurance sector as a main component to lowering costs and improving quality of health care. It would also make it illegal for insurers to drop sick people or deny them coverage for pre-existing conditions, and require every American to carry health coverage. The plan also included medical spending cuts and taxes on insurance companies that offer expensive plans.New York Times2| Politico2

After much public debate during the Congressional summer recess of 2009, Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress on September 9 where he addressed concerns over the proposals.CNN2CNN2-Archive

Lgezelius (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2014
Jpatte20 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌ Please state what form of action you would want to be taken, then set  to   again.  Dustin  ( talk ) 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cuba and 2014
Shouldn't the developments of Cuba be added to the opening paragraph? Seems that would be a pretty monumental accomplishment. Also, seeing as how the opening already mentions the Republican takeover of the House in the 2010 elections, wouldn't it complete that picture to add in a similar reference in the opening to the Republican takeover of Congress overall in 2014? 2602:306:8343:5980:B9F2:F973:7411:6ED0 (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The section on Cuba is far, far too long for this summary style article, and much of it is superfluous with respect to the life of Barack Obama. I suggest that the entire section be moved to Presidency of Barack Obama (where there is currently nothing), and be replaced by a one or two sentence summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has objected, I have moved this section to Presidency of Barack Obama. Perhaps someone can whip up a brief summary (one or two sentences, max) to replace it? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Can it UK pronunciation be sourced? Need it be? I put a cn-tag on it, but it was removed. Is it relevant at all to give a UK-pronunciation for an American? ––St.nerol (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm from the UK, and I pronounce it the way it is supposed to be pronounced. There's no need for the Wikipedia article to show alternative pronunciations for people who don't know better. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I was thinking something like that. So shouldn't the least one could ask be some reliable source saying that it is dominant and generally acceptable in UK to have a differing pronunciation? -St.nerol (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the opposite in the BBC Pronunciation Guide: "His name should be pronounced buh-RAAK oh-BAA-muh." ––St.nerol (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is completely unnecessary. There is only one way to pronounce his name (which we give). I can understand giving alternatives for things that are said differently depending on markets (such as Hyundai), but not for someone's name. Wikipedia doesn't provide alternatives for Adolf Hitler, even though some people say adɔlf or eɪdɔlf instead of ˈadɔlf. Very few people mispronounce it in the UK, as I said earlier, and most people who were getting it wrong now pronounce it correctly. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we agree with each other, but some people obviously don't, so isn't it a good idea to support the pronunciation with a citation, when we have one served? -St.nerol (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (However it is with Hitler, Wp does provide an alternative pronunciaion e.g. for Martin Luther, very far from the German one.) ––St.nerol (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Scjessey here - there is no need for this, and there is no consensus for this addition. Discuss if you like, but please don't re-add to the article without consensus. Tvoz / talk 07:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize
The Nobel Peace Prize for Obama is heavily critized everywhere, maybe this should be mentioned. Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+peace+prize — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.244.130 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree, except that there isn't any readily visible mentions of or links to "criticism" of Obama anywhere on his page here at all, so what does it matter? For anyone who doesn't know any better, he's never had any criticisms, nor any controversies or scandals during his entire presidency. Isn't it amazing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCB0:7600:18A4:1147:C08A:4F3C (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're really funny. You should do stand-up comedy, or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More information
I want more about the Dunham ancestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.140.10 (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Family of Barack Obama and Ann Dunham would be the places to go for this. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hyperlink
How about a hyperlink to the city of Chicago. Throughout the article there are hyperlinks to other places and instituitions, but when the word Chicago comes up, there is no hyperlink, not throughout the entire article. This is very strange and should be changed. Afterall, this is where his political career began, where he spent a large portion of his life, and what he considers his hometown. It's ogg Wikipedia choses to have no hyperlinks to Chicago whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for catching the oversight.--JayJasper (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
Shouldn't the infobox list him as an incumbent, and not give the 2009 - 2017 dates it currently does? If you check out Joe Biden or Francois Hollande, both are listed as incumbents and only the "assumed office" date is given. 174.102.162.186 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind -- it's been fixed. 174.102.162.186 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015
Barack Obama place of birth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcd41RO25k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqrTsz1wQIM

you have his birth place wrong he was not born in the usa he was born in kenyan the 3 videos above obama says he was born in kenyan and so did his wife.

108.180.154.228 (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

❌ - YouTube is not a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no RS possible, because it isn't true. Was this request posted by Donald Trump? It's 2015, folks. Tvoz / talk 08:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Barak Hussein Obama II first African-American president
I take issue with the statement that Barak Obama II is America's first African-American president. Yes, Mr. Obama has black skin color. However, his ancestry shows that Mr. Obama is not a full-blooded Negro. His father, Barak Obama, Sr. was born near Lake Victoria in Kenya, Africa. Barak Obama, Sr. is a Negro. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, an American from Kansas, USA, of mostly English ancestry was a Caucasian. Therefore, their son, Barak Obama II, is a mixed-race individual. This means Barak Obama II is America's first multi-racial president. With all due respect, I think the Wikipedia entry should be changed from America's first African-American president to America's first multi-racial president. This is historically important because it is the first time America has had a president of such heritage. I believe accuracy is important. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion and to make my suggestion. M.X.Dexter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.146.111 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. You might also might be interested in seeing the many archived disussions on this topic.--JayJasper (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @M.X.Dexter "With all due respect," I don't think we need to label people based on whether or not they are a "full-blooded Negro," or whatever other ghastly nomenclature you can come up with. Ugh. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP did use the word "Negro", but the comment does not appear to have been of bad intention, so your "ugh" may not be taken in a particularly kind manner. I myself would not use the word "Negro", but I prefer to judge what one says by the apparent intent behind the comment. The term is now obviously dated, but, especially among older people who used the term "Negro" when they were young, you may still find few people using the term without actually meaning harm. JayJasper's answer was sufficient. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You may think JayJasper's answer was sufficient, but I disagree. No matter the intent of the original poster, use of phrases like "full-blooded Negro" are to be discouraged. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015
First Mulato President (father was african american, mother was white) in replacement of first african american president.

Mermaidgirl87 (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See FAQ Q2 for a discussion of why terms of this kind are not used.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To see the answer to FAQ Q2 go the top of this page, click "show" on the line that says "Frequently Asked Questions", then click "show" on the line that contains text of Q2, and then read A2. SMP0328. (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2015
70.57.7.64 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Your article describes his father as African American - the man was Kenyan not American so the description is incorrect.70.57.7.64 (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Jim Siegle thesiegless@msn.com


 * I see no such text in the article. Obama Sr. is described, accurately,  as a Luo from Kenya. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Official website
I have again reverted Ajlipp's edit that added the Barack Obama Foundation to the "official site" item of the infobox for two reasons: I think we shouldn't change it until after Obama's presidency. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The Foundation will only become active after Barack Obama leaves office
 * 2) We cannot know what will happen to the current official site
 * I disagree and added the website back. Since the Foundation is currently in operation (right now it is looking for a location for building the library) and authorized by Obama, I thought it should be there. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please self-revert. First of all, you are needlessly perpetuating an edit war without allowing sufficient discussion here. Second, there's no source anywhere that says the Foundation is the "official site" of Barack Obama. Let's have a proper discussion, not an edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, since neither site represents an "official website" of Barack Obama, neither should be listed and the item should be removed from the infobox. Instead, both should be in the "External links" section. Incidentally, the "official site" of his predecessor is georgewbush.com, so leaving it as it was would be more consistent. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The foundation is now listed as an external link instead of on the sidebar. It is offical because of Foundation Information.--Frmorrison (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

better photo?
that grinning photo is terrible, Obama rarely looks like that. He usually looks much more sober and serious. farther down in the page, OK, but "above the fold" should be a more familiar picture. 67.243.29.174 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is the official Oval Office portrait, which is what is preferred for the presidential biographical articles. Tarc (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If that is wiki policy, it is in conflict with other wiki policies. Just as people are not supposed to edit their own wiki pages, politicians should not be able to choose their own wiki photos, for precisely the reason I raised this issue. I don't recall every seeing Obama look like this. Think of the hope photo. 67.243.29.174 (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So go lobby to change the policy; I don't know where the correct place to do that is, but it isn't here (on an individual president's page). --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This talk page is the correct place to ask to change the main picture. However, it will be hard to gain consensus, since this photo is Obama's official portrait. If Obama did not like it, he would have taken another portrait. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but we don't care a bean whether the individual pictured likes the picture, in any article. --jpgordon:==( o ) 00:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What pic to use then? We can't go wrong by puttin in a pic that Obama himself provides, don't want to use a controversial picture for this BLP for example. And I think it's just a non neutral POV to say this pic has a weird grin. Looks fine to me. Popish Plot (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * When I said "it is preferred", I meant that it is preferred by a consensus of Wikipedia editors to use the official portrait. Not that any of the subjects had any input into the matter. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2015
Dorkydad63 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have an actual edit request to make? This one was blank. Tarc (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ACA information
I feel as if there is too little information about the complications surrounding the initial rollout of the ACA, particularly the technical problems with the federal website. I also noticed that there is no mention, at least under "healthcare reform", of the confusion over who can keep their plan and who cannot. I am not saying we need to go full fox news about this or that criticisms should be a major portion of the subsection, but at the very least a sentence or two are needed to maintain an unbiased description. Please let me know what you think about this. Tacocar (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Stuff like that is really too detailed to get into in a biographical article. Have you checked Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and perhaps Presidency of Barack Obama? Tarc (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is not much there either, and I do think that there is a great deal of positive detail on this page, especially about the ACA, without any mention of negative occurrences. When I look at other biographical pages, like George W. Bush's, I see a great deal of positive and negative comments and analysis, which is a good thing! I just feel as though Obama's statements about keeping your plan are more pertinent to a biography page than the details about how the ACA works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacocar (talk • contribs)


 * This article is about Barack Obama, not the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If the ACA article is lacking in detail, please make suggestions there. Also, to suggest there is a "great deal of positive detail... without any mention of negative occurrences" is not a fair reading of the article and a recipe for setting up a false balance. Moreover, we don't change articles on the basis of what goes on at other articles. Articles are by and large independent of one another. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to cause any anger here, I am new to contributing to Wikipedia so please forgive me if I am still learning how it works. I am simply confused as to why there is no mention of Obama lying to the American people about keeping their plan and keeping their doctor. Believe me, I personally have no issue with the Law and I understand that the plans that were cancelled barely qualify as medical insurance at all, but when a president lies to his people, or at the very least does not understand consequences of his legislation, it should be listed on his or her biography. I understand that this is not an article specifically about his presidency, but under the healthcare subsection there are specific descriptions of how the law works and how it was legally justified, yet no mention of the issue of "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". Perhaps the issue is that there is too much information there already, but I do not understand how insurance rates under a person's presidency is any more linked to him or her than repeatedly misleading his or her people. I am really not trying to start a political debate here, I am simply seeing what looks to be an article with a slight bias towards the president, and as an avid user of Wikipedia I want to see the least biased articles possible. I would understand leaving this information out if it was disputable whether or not the president misled the American people about keeping their plans, but it is an undisputable fact that the president stated that the American people could keep their plans under the ACA "period". Simply put: I think his comments about the American people being able to keep their plans are just as, if not more, applicable to this article as a description of the law and a chart showing insurance rates during his presidency. I would like to make it clear again that I am not trying to attack anyone personally, but rather understand different opinions on the matter. On another note, I agree that articles should be handled independently; I was trying to show the article on Bush as an example of a biography that showed positives and negatives in an unbiased format. Thank you. Tacocar (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, when you take things out of content or change the wording, it can be misleading. Obama had a grandfather clause in the law to keep old plans, but it was not strong enough to work. The intent was there. Such a confusing matter that no one knows how many plans were cancelled, does not belong in a biography. I added a statement that in late 2013 he dropped in approval rating due the ACA rollout. -Frmorrison (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing whether or not he intended for people to lose their plans or not because it is obvious that he would never want that. I simply believe it should at least be mentioned that he failed to deliver on this promise, especially because he campaigned on it so much. If there is enough room to describe the maximum out-of-pocket premiums under the law, there is enough room to explain where he was not able to follow though on a promise he continuously made to the American people. Also, he continued to make that promise after the law was signed and the HHS regulations had been released. The idea that if you like the plan you currently have then you can keep it was one of the major promises obama made about the law and I think that should be included. Thank you. (Again, not trying to spark any anger)Tacocar (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No it should be included here because if it not important enough. I would bet real money that every member of Congress has promised something and it didn't happen. If you want to contribute information about the ACA, check out the ACA article instead of this one. You do not have consensus over your contrasting opinions. -Frmorrison (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, only two types of plans were cancelled:
 * Plans that were so utterly rubbish, they didn't cover the minimal requirements set out in the ACA ("junk" policies).
 * Plans that were deemed too costly by greedy insurance companies, so they used the ACA as an excuse to screw their customers.
 * A tiny percentage of the population actually had their insurance cancelled, and most who did were able to get better policies for less money. So the reality is that although it didn't work out quite as planned, the nation is far better off with the ACA than without it. Focusing on a single negative talking point pushed by Republicans ignores the enormous success of "Obamacare" and thus sets up a false balance. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not a republican. However, I don't think obamacare can be considered an "enormous success", at least not yet. But that is besides the point. I do not think the best way to avoid political bias is by completely ignoring a highly publicised issue with the law, especially considering how it affected his approval ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacocar (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The ACA aka obamacare is a complex topic. I do think it's his most notable accomplishment so should be discussed more. This article links to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act so I don't think it's being ignored. But you may disagree with that article. I guess we don't have 100% reliable sources showing whether it's a success or failure at this point. Popish Plot (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Many of the so-called "junk" policies that got canceled due to the ACA were canceled because they did not cover birth control for people in their 50s and 60s. The ACA requires all policies to cover birth control, even if the customers are too old to use it. These customers did not consider these policies to be "junk," and to use that word to describe them is an insult to the intelligence of those customers.
 * As possible sources for criticism of the ACA for both this article and the main ACA article, the article at this link contains 331 criticisms of the ACA, and many of those criticisms are by Democrats and unions who had originally supported the ACA. Every one of these criticisms includes links to sources. While this article itself is not a reliable source, the hundreds of links that it contains are reliable sources. The ACA is much worse than you are claiming, as is proven by the many criticisms coming from the people who had originally supported it: http://tinyurl dot com /m8tfd7q 71.182.249.12 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP-hopper's comment can be safely ignored. The blog is a partisan right-wing screed that links to dozens of low-quality sources. The claims about the junk policies are ludicrous - the whole point of the ACA is to spread the cost around, so older people who aren't going to have kids have to pay for birth control just the same as they have to pay for school taxes. The ACA has been one of the great successes of the 21st century. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are some examples from the list, along with what you claim are their "low quality" sources:


 * Harvard faculty members who supported the passage of Obamacare later complained that they had to pay for it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/health-care-fixes-backed-by-harvards-experts-now-roil-its-faculty.html?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=2
 * Unite Here (a union that supported Obama in both elections) said Obamacare “threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.” http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2545310
 * In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their districts. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/MedDeviceLetter12102012.pdf
 * Five minute CNN video of Obamacare supporter complaining and complaining and complaining about her insurance being canceled https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F0z-Hxi5s8
 * I’m an Obama supporter. But Obamacare has hurt my family. Obamacare has been far more frustrating than I’d ever dreamed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/10/im-an-obama-supporter-but-obamacare-has-hurt-my-family/
 * Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323854904578260313912570432.html
 * A self described “complete fan of the Affordable Care Act” who had cancer complained that Obamacare had caused her to lose coverage for her oncologist http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-patients-20140205,0,1675336,full.story#axzz2sS6Xcoul
 * Obamacare caused Catherine Blackwood to lose coverage for her cancer medications http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579390772732855560?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000142405270230394570457939077273
 * Doctor who survived breast cancer said “Under Obamacare, I’d be dead.” http://www.aim.org/guest-column/how-obamacare-slaps-the-sick/
 * Obamacare forced colon cancer survivor Janet Grigg to lose her doctor. Her new Obamacare policy covers zero doctors within a 400 mile radius of her home. http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/30/cancer-survivors-obamacare-plan-doesnt-cover-a-single-doctor-in-400-miles/
 * After cancer patient Linda Rolain paid her Obamacare premiums, Obamacare refused to pay for her medical treatment, and she died http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/woman-class-action-lawsuit-against-xerox-dies
 * Obamacare encourages employers to adopt a 29 hour work week, and this disproportionately hurts women http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/shes-a-29er/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=yahoofinance&_r=1
 * Hundreds of employers have switched to a 29 hour work week to avoid paying for Obamacare http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/101713-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm
 * Obamacare customer borrowed $14,000 to pay for cataract surgery because her Obamacare policy refused to pay for it http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_27481258/obamacare-medi-cal-waiting-game-many-low-income
 * 100% of Senate Democrats up for reelection planned to support a delay in Obamacare’s individual mandate - This tweet is from CNN's Dana Bash: https://twitter.com/DanaBashCNN/status/393110100153352192
 * In February 2008, Obama said: “We are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president.” However, by the time his first term was over, family premiums had gotten bigger, not smaller. The increase was $3,065 per family. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-premiums-3-065-obama-224300715.html
 * Obamacare includes a 40% tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans. In August 2013, unions that supported the passage of Obamacare complained about this tax. http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/obamacares-cadillac-tax-poses-problem-for-unions-and-city-finances.html/?ref=YF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.41.135 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are just some examples. The list contains hundreds of others, all with links to sources.


 * 74.98.41.135 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Mostly out of date crap. The ACA is humming along nicely now, with few problems. Also, absolutely _none_ of that is biographically significant. And Democrats seeking delays regretted that after they lost their elections, the fools. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Wikipedia is encyclopedic. Therefore, content cannot be "out of date."


 * 2) No, the people in those, and in the hundreds of other examples, are not "humming along nicely now."


 * 3) I agree with you that those things are not relevant to this article. However, they are relevant to the ACA article, but time and experience have shown that the people who control that article will not allow those things to be in that article. For example, the ACA article falsely claims that only "several" employers have adopted a 29 hour work week in order to avoid paying for Obamacare, when the source I cited above says the real number is in the "hundreds." Multiple attempts to replace this false info with the true info at the ACA article have been reverted, because the people who control that article prefer to give false info that makes the the ACA look good, instead of true info that makes the ACA look bad.


 * 4) The ACA was deliberately written so that its most damaging provisions would not take place until after the 2012 election. In 2010, the only people criticizing the ACA were Republicans and Libertarians. However, starting in the fall of 2013, much of the biggest criticism has been coming from Democrats and unions, who seem totally shocked that these things are happening. Perhaps they should have actually read the ACA back in 2010, and then they would not be surprised at what is happening. If Republicans actually had any brains, they would stop trying to repeal the ACA, and instead, let the Democrats and unions who supported it, deal with the harm that it is causing them.


 * 74.98.34.9 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Activepol talk template
I removed the "activepol=yes" parameter because Obama is not running for office, he is not campaigning for re-election, n or is he involved in some current political conflict or controversy as far as I am aware. Therefore surely he meets none of the criteria for that template. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? I don't know, I think he is the epitome of activepol - not involved in current political conflict or controversy? I think he would beg to differ, as I do. The point of the template is to remind folks that there may be partisan editing on the page - the story of this page for years - and although we do have the article probation template displayed so this isn't essential, I think the activepol reinforces it, and see no reason to remove it. Let's see what other editors think. Tvoz / talk 23:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The wording at Template:Active politician seems to be more restrictive than the description found at Category:Active politicians, so I don't know. I never knew this thing existed until now, since it does not display itself on talk pages. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not using Template:Active politician or, we're using WikiProject BannerShell  (subset WikiProject Biography) which does display the wording here when the "activepol=yes" is in place, and that's what was removed. This is not a big deal, but I reinstated it because I really don't get the logic of saying that Obama doesn't fit. Is he not involved in political conflict or controversy? News to me. Tvoz / talk 05:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Race
He's just as white as he is black. What is the excuse for this racism? DawnDusk (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's been multiple (understatement) discussions on this. Please read the FAQ in the header and search through the archives. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 08:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's an easy link to the FAQ.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Obama's education
Why nothing on his undergraduate work as in GPA and how did he finance all this education through Harvard Law. Did he really register as a foreign student when in undergrad school. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31C9:EEF0:4DEF:6385:A719:E4D1 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * GPA is not normally released and no court ordered it released. Obama never registered as a foreign student since he is American. -Frmorrison (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

U.S. drone strike
My suggestion for the main article: "As president and as Commander-in-chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations including the one that inadvertently took the lives of Warren and Giovanni," Obama said Thursday morning in the White House briefing room, where he apologized on behalf of the U.S. government. ref. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/23/politics/white-house-hostages-killed/index.html Probably place this to the Foreign policy section. 91.83.252.211 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * While tragic, this is not biographically significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't agree. Quite significant as he says he is responsible for the 2 people's death. 91.83.252.211 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration would be suitable. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's sad, but this president, like many of those before him, is responsible for the deaths of many. I agree with Tarc. Jonathunder (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI
One of our favorite ex-editors is stirring up the "article isn't NPOV!" pot over at the Free Republic, so keep an eye out for vandalism today. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha! - "person who lives in my apartment building" is Grundle's sockpuppet defense, is it? That's too funny. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * He does say "a crazy person who lives in my apartment building added the following reliably sourced content to that section on April 2, 2015". I suspect that is literally true. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh. I miss Grundle sometimes. Not enough to let him edit this article, but still. Jonathunder (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Is needed?
This edit added  to various parts of the article. How does that improve the article? Should it be removed from the article? SMP0328. (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The  is a non-breaking space which means that when a line wraps, it will not break between the number and the following word. The usages are debatable as there is a school of thought that a whole word like "million" should be allowed to wrap to the next line, and there's not much likelihood of someone thinking a value is only $10 by missing the "million" on the next line. On the other hand, perhaps the values are best if "million" is kept with the number. I think it's ok. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, most of the article already used, e.g.: $11.5 trillion, $3 trillion, and $1.5 trillion. For consistency I just added   where it was "missing". --Oldnewnew (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the use of  being consistent, but I lean toward removing it throughout the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But then it should be removed from percent also, e.g. 70 percent. Would that be a good idea? --Oldnewnew (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could a put a hyphen in place of each . SMP0328. (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would we want to replace a space with a hyphen in places where a hyphen is not normally called for? And if we did, would we use normal (breaking) hyphens, or the even more difficult to code non-breaking hyphens? 2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with removing the non-breaking spaces. Line breaks in situations such as these are undesirable. As for replacing them with hyphens, I am not sure that is appropriate. Non-breaking spaces are permitted per MOS:NBSP. Dustin  ( talk ) 04:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing consistency – Cite templates
Most of the article has cite templates. However, the Further reading section does not although the References section does. It looks like the cite templates are forgotten in the Further reading section. --Oldnewnew (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I've added different cite templates in the section. However, there is a dead link. I'm not able to update it. Hope that someone can update it in the article:
 * --Oldnewnew (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The current link should be http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/what-makes-obama-run/Content?oid=889221 2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks! I've updated with your link. --Oldnewnew (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks! I've updated with your link. --Oldnewnew (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User affiliated to Barack Obama
You have twice added a bogus connected contributor to this talk page: diff + diff. That is something to do with a rather cheeky accusation on your talk about a claimed COI with regard to Steinway & Sons, aka WP:POINT. Please explain your connection with the subject of this article or revert your edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Answer to User:Johnuniq: Yes, I added the connected contributor. I saw that you removed the template and wrote "please don't muck around when frustrated by idiocy on your talk" in the summary field. Then I added the connected contributor once again.
 * I have edited the Steinway & Sons article. Most of the edits I've made in the Steinway & Sons article have been adding cite templates and restoring dead links through the entire article. These technical adjustments count for hundreds of my edits in the Steinway & Sons article. The adjustments was actually requested by User:Pyrotec on Talk:Steinway & Sons/GA1. I have made many similar, technical edits in the Barack Obama article and would like to continue to do so in the article. According to User:Theroadislong I'm affiliated to Steinway & Sons based on my many edits of the Steinway & Sons article. I've made many similar edits in the Barack Obama article. If I'm affiliated to Steinway & Sons then I'm also affiliated to Barack Obama. Otherwise, User:Theroadislong's edits here and here don't make sense. By the way, I have edited other articles many times, e.g. Musical instrument, and would like to continue to do so in the Musical instrument article. Perhaps I'm also affiliated to musical instruments.
 * However, I'm glad to hear that you above call it "a rather cheeky accusation on your [my] talk" page and here call it an "idiocy on your [my] talk" page. Thanks for the support. --Oldnewnew (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems a definite case of WP:POINT. Oldnewnew, I don't know what the issue in the Steinway article is and I'm not going to look into it or get involved in it, but keep the issues and discussion over in that article. Do not spill it over into this one to make a point. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not making a point per WP:POINT. I just take the consequence of User:Theroadislong's edit here and here. As I know there should be consistency on Wikipedia. If I'm affiliated to Steinway & Sons but not to Barack Obama then the use of the connected contributor template is inconsistent and a mess. --Oldnewnew (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the definition of making a point per WP:POINT. "...making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their 'point'." Oldnewnew, end this now. I see that you are also now making a large number of edits to George W. Bush, one can conjecture that you intend to do the same thing and post the same connected contributor template. Stop now. This is absolutely not the way to get this done. Your issues have absolutely nothing to do with this article or George W. Bush. It is entirely likely the use of that template against you was incorrect, possible a violation of WP:AGF, but you are destroying any possible good will and support by going at it this way in violation of WP:POINT. Continue this, and I will report you to an administrator myself. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Dead links
There are some dead links in the article. One of the dead links has a tag but there are more than just one link with a problem. See http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Barack_Obama. If someone would like to help finding the new URL for these websites or restore the dead and problematic links it would be great. --Oldnewnew (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Does anyone want to help me restoring the dead and problematic links in the article? I have added cite templates and restored dead links in the Steinway & Sons article. It took my hundreds of edits to do that myself! I'm not going to do the same again because the work was simply too much for just one person. --Oldnewnew (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Michelle Robinson?
I see that on this and other pages the spouse's surname is shown as their pre-marriage surname. I started discussion about this on Template_talk:Infobox_person and on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography but have received little response. I can find no reason for this apparent trend. Per suggestion at the discussion, I've edited this page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Drone strikes
It is totally inexcusable that there is no mention of drone strikes in Pakistan in this article's foreign policy section. All we require is a short paragraph about this extremely notable Obama administration foreign policy and the controversies relating to it. Otherwise this is article is not credible as supposedly impartial and comprehensive. JJARichardson (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration would be more suitable. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. It seems preposterous for a foreign policy issue easily as significant as action in Libya and Iraq to not be included. Not even a sentence? JJARichardson (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind this article is Barack Obama's biography. Drone strikes against a specific country may be an important aspect of the foreign policy of the US government, but that does not mean they are specifically biographically significant to Barack Obama. Bear in mind Obama did not actually start drone strikes in foreign nations. That was going on a long time before he came to office. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While he did not invent drone strikes, they have massively expanded in scope under Obama, and their use has not been limited to Pakistan. They've become a "go to" tool for this administration. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but are they a significant detail in the broader life of Obama, as this summary style article hopes to encapsulate? Of course not. As Tarc said, they are significant in the context of foreign policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The drone strikes have been significantly expanded under Obama, and it's a point of contention among the left-wing that he has done so. Fundamental to Obama's foreign policy agenda has been a shift from conventional warfare to drones. Also bear in mind, as the article on the drone strikes states, that this has resulted in an increase in civilian deaths which the Pakistani prime minster has publicity opposed and which Amnesty International has spoken out against as potentially criminal. Conversely, the intervention in Libya resulted in sparing civilian deaths and had substantial levels of support internationally, including of course from the UN which is apparently perturbed by the drone strikes. JJARichardson (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of drone strikes, although the notion that drone strikes have caused an increase in civilian deaths compared to previous methods of warfare (carpet bombing, for instance) is ridiculous. This is a summary style article. It covers broad strokes. Specifics are for the "daughter articles" like Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This may be your opinion, but objectively the sources state a concern about drone strikes based upon the civilian deaths caused by them along with concerns about sovereignty being violated. With all due respect, I reiterate my point that were are doing our users a disservice by essentially covering up the reality of this prominent issue in the body of this article. By all means, the drones should be discussed as length in the foreign policy article. It should be a concise paragraph in this one. I don't understand how a subject addressed by national governments, the UN and organizations like Amnesty is trivial. And yes, this would be balanced by the POV that drones are a more respectable and responsible kind of warfare. JJARichardson (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are obviously not personally keen on drone strikes (me neither!), but the fact remains the type of weapon used to conduct air strikes is not biographically significant. While there is plenty of coverage in the media about the rights and wrongs of drone strikes, there's little media coverage saying that drone strikes are an Obama problem. There are many things more biographically significant that are competing for attention in this article, which is why we use summary style. Any summary of foreign policy that talks about the specific weapons used to conduct said policy wouldn't be much of a summary, would it? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally I love drone strikes; terrorists going *boom* into itty bitty pieces warms the cockles of my heart, but that's neither here nor there. But yes, the specifics of using drones in war is not suited to this biographical article. Tarc (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even warmer if you'd live in the same apartment complex.--TMCk (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Noting the use of any specific war weapon isn't my agenda... it's the fact that the expanded use of drone warfare in countries like Pakistan by the Obama administration is an extremely contentious policy on an international scale, as multiple reputable sources state. I still think that it's totally warranted that we mention it in this article's foreign policy section, even if it is just a sentence or two. JJARichardson (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Business and Self Employment
Does this bit of trivia really merit its own section? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That section has been removed. SMP0328. (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, that does not merit its own section. It does not seem very notable. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015
I would like to change Obama's religion, he is cathlioc not christian.

162.104.7.236 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Er, first off, Catholics are Christians. Second, the most recent church that Obama was affiliated with, the Trinity UCC, is Protestant. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it worth noting that there is a suspicion in some quarters that if Obama's not in fact Muslim he's unusually sympathetic towards them? 118.208.36.150 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that is speculation and likely false.--Frmorrison (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Dreams from my Father
Bill Ayers should be included as the co-author. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.197.57 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Source? (Hint: Stormfront, World Net Daily, and chain emails don't count.) 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"Right to liberty"
Can we have a section on his failure to protect citizens right to liberty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.144.70 (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea what you're talking about. Tvoz / talk 06:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect that if a shaky 35mm ever shows up of Obama and his elementary school brethren singing that old classic "who stole the cookie in the cookie jar? Who me?! Yes you!", someone will run a headline screaming "OBAMA'S JUVENILE LARCENY AND SUBSEQUENT DENIAL EXPOSED!" Tarc (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Filmography
Is there a reason we don't have an article on Obama's filmography? With the release of 'Pitch Perfect 2', I went to see if it had been added to his filmography, and we don't have that article at all. --ID man12 ID (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, cameos aren't usually listed if the person is not already an actor.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What about shows on which he's appeared as a guest, rather than cameos? --ID man12 ID (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. Definitely. And lets be sure not to overlook all his televised press conferences, speeches to the American public, and those seven ratings blockbuster State of the Union Addresses. 2600:1006:B14D:A3C0:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Besides (what I assume to be) the sarcastic comment above, is there any consensus on this? --ID man12 ID (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIKT, his two predecessors don´t have a "filmography" section, that could be a hint of probable consensus (personally I think it´s not suitable for the main article). However, at the bottom of the Obama-article is a template with dozens of WP-Obama articles, including a section called "Public image". There I find Barack Obama in comics, so you could probably create a Barack Obama in Film and TV or something like that, and link it in that template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Or put something in the "Popular culture" section of Public image of Barack Obama. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would describe this as "not biographically significant". Generally speaking, it is only worth inclusion if the mainstream media has given such things extensive media coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

LGBT Paragraph
The second paragraph of the LGBT section has absolutely nothing to do with LGBT rights whatsoever.--Johnny 42 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. Presumably some rearranging of things has occurred and that paragraph somehow got stuck in the wrong place. I'm not exactly sure where it is meant to be. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the revision that originally added the headers and likely resulted in this minor paragraph/section mismatch. I have attempted to address the problem (my edit summary should say "Domestic policy", not "policies"). If you think another section is suitable, move the paragraph there. Dustin  ( talk ) 14:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2015
President Obama is the first sitting United States Senator to be elected president since John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

2601:200:C100:52F4:2986:9E4E:888F:D626 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No clear request made. Assumed request appears to be trivia.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Cuba
So, it's okay to write a section about the Iran nukes  - but wrong to write on the historic thaw with Cuba? sounds to me like something with a political motives. I'm going to insert it back right after the re-opening of the embassies later this month. Archway (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not very helpful. Please assume good faith. What specific material are you arguing should be included in the article? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A small section which summarize the Cuba thaw, similar to the Iran deal one. Archway (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable, it is a significant event in his presidency that does appear to be his doing. Was anybody opposing it? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was asked to add something there, and so I've done. Pandeist (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

He's not an African American president racial-wise
He's actually the first mixed race president. Are we going with his racial identity instead if his actual races here? If so, state racial identity-wise he's the first black American president, but he's racially the first mixed race president (that is, significantly mixed and not like 1/20 black like a few other presidents may be). If not, hop off of the bandwagon and stop calling his race just black. Black people don't have a white parent and it's disrespectful to his white family to call him black. Obama identifying as black is like disowning in his mother and her side of his family. If you're calling him black based on his phenotype, however, I'd say yes; he looks more black than white, so it should be stated that he is phenotypically black and racial-identity wise black, but ancestry-wise and racially, he's mixed race.

I expect better of Wikipedia. We must stick to the facts and not popular opinion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.39.57 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I will comment on this with my own view, but it might be worth reading Q2 of the above FAQ. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting topic proposed in this section, but in my humble opinion, although Blacks often say they are "African-American," doesn't a mother from America and a father from Africa make one African-American in its proper and literal sense? If that is the case, I believe the term is, in fact, best described for the current U.S. President. Conspirasee1 (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed at great length, and is explained above in FAQ #2. Tvoz / talk 03:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
Barak Obama is not the first African-American president. African-American denotes a group of people who are the ancestors of African slaves brought to the USA as slave laborers. Barak Obama is the first Black American president. He is not African-American, he is Kenyan-American. This needs to be corrected as it is historically incorrect and culturally offensive to the different nationalities that comprise the Black community in America. Yomij (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)yomij
 * Obama is universally regarded as African American in the United States. You can open up the FAQ at the top of this page and take a look at Q2 regarding this issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Iran Nuclear talks
I have substantially reworded the section on the Iran nuclear talks. Noting recentism, much of the previous content was, I felt, information that would not be particularly relevant in 10 years time. I tried to write it in a style that would make more sense in 10 years taking into account the unfolding events. I would like to acknowledge that contributions of the editors that I deleted. Thank you. Mozzie (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added three references, but these are breaking news pieces. I hope they are replaced at some stage by more thorough analysis with will surely be carried out in the near future Mozzie (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

First president to visit prison
I think that it is an important and remarkable fact. My suggestion for the main article: Obama is the first sitting president in a prison. Ref. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/us/obama-el-reno-oklahoma-prison.html?_r=0 Probably add also a picture from NYT: http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/07/17/us/17OBAMAWEBSUB/17OBAMAWEBSUB-superJumbo-v3.jpg .91.83.4.106 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The source does not say he was the first president in prison. It says he is the first sitting president to visit a federal prison.  -- GB fan 00:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate timeline
The article says "Nine months after his election, Obama was named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate". This is not accurate. Obama was elected president November 4, 2008. The winner of the Nobel peace price 2009 was announced October 9, 2009. This is eleven months after the election, not nine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivarw~enwiki (talk • contribs) 10:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed "election" to "inauguration". -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: "Barack"
now redirects here, so the hatnote needs to indicate this, therefore, the template should be changed from redirect to redirect2

Change:

To:

Which also clarifies why "Barack (disambiguation)" is indicated on the hatnote -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

✅ - Arjayay (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

How tall is Barack Obama?
I saw a picture of him standing besides the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and it seemed that Barack Obama was smaller than him?! Unfortunately it could not be seen if or if not Erdogan was standing on a pedestal. --217.224.217.98 (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm interested that you would find that surprising. Biographical articles don't usually give their subject's heights unless it's relevant, as for a sportsperson. FWIW there doesn't seem to be a lot in it when they are seen walking side by side here. William Avery (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Obama is 6'1 according to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't exactly a research desk, but FYI, you if you do a google search of a famous person, like "barack obama height", google will tell you. It's kind of cool. I don't know how to check google's sources, but they do agree here, 6'1" - Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2015
Please change age from 53 to 54 because his birthday (August 4) just passed.

24.103.221.66 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi 24. The age will (and has) change automatically. You should see 54 in the current version of the article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nickname
There should be some mention that he had the nickname Barry. I mention this because I read this somewhere and wanted to check wiki to see if it was true because I never heard this. I ended up having to use another reference. So if I was using wiki to confirm this then others might.

Also it is interesting information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.163.50 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, the thing is we cannot accept original research. Which means you must be able to prove your claims are accurate. You said you've read it on elsewhere, so you can provide that (the reference you used) as a source. But it has to be reliable. -- Chamith   (talk)  06:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/07/04/when-president-obama-was-just-barry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.125.130 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/barry-obama-newsweek/2008/03/24/id/323286/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.125.130 (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Why is he listed as "African American" rather than mixed race (his mother being white)? LeapUK (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See the "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" at the top of the page, click "show" on the right to expand and then find Q2. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, see the No true Scotsman fallacy. He's an African American. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been dealt with during the User:Antiedman edit War of 2009-2010. Iamiyouareyou Iamiyouareyou (talk)
 * His being of mixed-race seems to be an obsession to some. I'm a Brit, so when I see Barack Obama I don't see a black man - I see an American. 5.81.27.83 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bill Ayers controversy
For some reason, Bill Ayers is ommitted from even a mention in this article but he was a focal point of the 2008 campaign and their relation even has an article, Bill Ayers 2008 presidential election controversy. Move to add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.57.197 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a relatively minor issue in a single political campaign that has no significant nexus with Obama's biographical story, did not change the course of the election, and probably had less of an effect than some of the other strange issues like the birther, secret muslim, and socialist/communist/fascist conspiracy theories. Interestingly, some non-mainstream parts of America are still carrying on about this, but that's their issue, not Obama's. If this article were book length, and probably in some serious books that would cover the span of his life and career, an issue like this might get half a page as part of the discussion of campaigning, but we only have so much space here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My goodness. That article is enormous in comparison to how much of an issue it was. I'd forgotten all about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a recent edit war on the main Ayers and Weather Underground articles that spilled over onto AN/I over the perennial drive-by efforts to label them a "terrorist" group. I would have thought that the "pals around with terrorists" meme has died down to the point where this is just garden variety anger over anti-American groups, but a google search shows that the conservative blogosphere is still hung up on it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the fact that there's an entire article on it suggest it noteworthy enough for at least one sentence though? 100.14.57.197 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No more than the Birther conspiracies have a place here, no. The Ayers issue was a criticism that arose duyring the 2008 presidential campaign, and had no impacting on the subject's overall history/biography. Tarc (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're looking at the broad picture, I would say 95% of what is written here is not really impacting his overall history or biography. Criticisms are part of the campaign too, and I think this one is relevant because he found himself frequently defending his relationship (or lackthereof) with Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. 100.14.57.197 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a funny definition of "frequently", when, out of 54 years of his life and 5+ years of a presidency, Obama has spent maybe 6 months having to answer questions about the matter during election season. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the story had been dead for a long time. I don't reall Ayer's name being mentioned at all during the 2012 election cycle and it's a safe bet that the Republicna would have brought if up repeatedly if it was considered significant at that time. Simply put it was not considered important enough for this biography then and it certainly is not now,--174.91.187.135 (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I said it was a frequent criticism during the campaign, hence it should be added to the campaign section. It was a noteworthy point of the 2008 election, and probably one of the few criticisms that weren't partisan attacks. I'm simply suggesting a sentence or two that share it was a criticism from the other side, even though it obviously did not turn out to be any wrong doing on his side. Including Ayers and Wright in the article as if he were part of Anti-American rhetoric would be just as biased as omitting the criticism in any form from the 08 election section. 100.14.57.197 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Both the Ayers and the Wright criticisms were examples of purely partisan attacks that had little impact beyond the right-wing echo chamber. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ayers is mentioned in the primary and general election articles of 2008, that is sufficient. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're being technical, most attacks would be considered purely partisan. Again, if the relationship between the two merits an entire article, then mentioning it with just one sentence in the campaign section is warranted. Leaving them out would seem biased and a disservice to informing. 100.14.57.197 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow, logically. Just because we have an article about the American School of economics doesn't mean we mention it in the article about America, or the article about economics. Just because something is notable in its own right for its relation to another notable thing, doesn't mean we mention the first thing in the second thing's article. Wikipedia is full of these one-way references. Back to Obama, early in his Presidency we counted something like five hundred different articles that were primarily or substantially about something related to him. There is no possible way we could mention them all in this article, we had to choose for relevance and weight. Also, we have to organize the information where it logically fits. When there's an entire article about the election campaign, there's no need to reproduce that here, except in the barest form as it relates to his career. This article has several dozen direct child articles, and so those other articles are available two clicks away, not just one. The weird campaign year assertion that Obama's relationship with Ayers was evidence of a sinister plot, or anti-Americanism, or whatever it was supposed to mean, had almost nothing to do with Obama himself and had very little effect on the campaign. There have been dozens of these, none by themselves important. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Removing of referenced content
+wholly inappropriate rationale in this edit.

It is irrelevant what the article is. If it's a featured article, then it shouldn't be because it doesn't include any criticism whatsoever. Alex (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When an edit is challenged (for example, reverted), it is standard for anyone wanting a change to provide a policy-based reason for the change. Regardless of the merits of the edit, WP:LEAD informs us that sticking stuff in the lead is not satisfactory, nor is going to ANI over a minor disagreement (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, but I must admit that I was quite aggravated by the original revert rationale of this user. They said that it was a "wholly inappropriate edit, especially for the lead section". So, the information can be in the article, just not in the lead, and they said that it can't be included at all.


 * As for my sig, it was a standard sig (Treat the above as wiki markup. not checked with Sig (nickname)=Alex), a red link to my user page, a nonexistent page at that time). Alex (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Uhh, that edit and the one I just reverted are wholly inappropriate. From the tone, to the YouTube source accusing Obama of murdering children. Absolutely inappropriate. BLP, UNDUE, POV. Dave Dial (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama
Hey. I wanted to ask you about this edit. You said that the content was not in the citation, but I can't copy+paste the content, can I? I would need to explain it in my own words... Alex (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Noone said you have to copypaste anything. But you cannot invent facts either. Dr.   K.  00:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't invent facts.


 * And where in that quote is it stated that "Obama is known for Terror Tuesdays"? Dr.   K.  00:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the source, the definition would be:

"Terror Tuesday" is a term for a secret national security meetings [attended by Mr. Obama] discussing persons to be assassinated by drone strikes.

The whole NYT article talks about this... Alex (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I could say: "There are ' Terror Tuesdays ', secret national security meetings, attended by Obama, discussing persons to be assassinated by drone strikes." Alex (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * How can the meetings be called "secret" if they are reported on the New York Times? Dr.   K.  01:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The meetings are not "secret", but assassination lists are. Otherwise, it wouldn't make much sense, apparently. Alex (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But on the line above you used the expression "secret national security meetings". Dr.   K.  01:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr.K., is the use of the word "secret" your only objection? If so, then perhaps Alex's material should be restored at least in part. If you have larger objections, let's focus on them. SMP0328. (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrasing is only part of the problem. The current administration has specific policies and procedures regarding the war on terror. Concentrating on Tuesday meetings dealing with drone attacks looks to me like an unbalanced approach which lacks WP:DUE coverage of the war on terror policies of the Obama administration. This is a featured article so we have to be careful about additions which fail to give a balanced overview of the policies of the Obama administration. Btw, no need for pinging, I have the article watchlisted. Dr.   K.  03:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a reliable source for the Obama administration is having such meetings, regardless of the day of the week, the article should refer to them in a way complying with policy. I pinged you because I didn't know if you watchlisted this article. Also, pinging can help even with a watchlisted article, because another editor may comment before the editor intended to see the comment looks again at his Watchlist. SMP0328. (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the war on terror should be described in this article as long as it is, as you say, compliant with policy. As far as pinging, anyone can respond at any time on this thread. There is no targeted response order. Also, I hope other editors respond on this thread. I wouldn't want this to become a conversation between only two or three editors. I am certain that there are many regulars here who watch this article and its talkpage. I hope they will offer their opinion. Dr.   K.  04:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been watching, waiting to chime in. I could have almost left the last attempted edit, if not for the POV wording that you described to that editor. The "known for "Terror Tuesdays"" and such. There should probably be something mentioned here and the POTUS article. NPOV and succinct. Dave Dial (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dave. The points you mentioned were the reason for my involvement in this controversy. Now that it seems these points are cleared up, I can happily leave it to regulars like you to decide the best way forward. Thank you. Dr.   K.  04:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea, you were absolutely right in that edits problems. I'm in no hurry to add anything, and you've done a good job in outlining the problems with the other editors attempts. I'm just adding that I think a small mention with reliable sourcing might improve the article. I'm off to bed now, thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okaay, this has gone a bit further then I expected... SO, I have not worded the page the way I did because I "support" some one who I have seen once in my life in a video on freaking YouTube. If something's argument is that "his brain is full of bullshit conspiracy ideas", that's cool too, I don't judge anything or nothing for that matter..


 * Note for the other regular users: say something about his foreign policy regarding counter-terrorism. I don't speak English, so I can only say this: "known for " Terror Tuesdays " ". That'd be all. Thank you very much. Alex (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama sidebar
Is everyone seeing the Obama sidebar taking up most of the lede? It's sitting next to the infobox instead of below it, and it seems to be squashing the text from the lede into a funnel. Dave Dial (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I noticed the same thing happening with Franklin D. Roosevelt. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - Yes, I did too. And now strangely both pages seem to be back to normal now, and without edits to the articles or the templates. So whatever it was, it seems fixed. Dave Dial (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

❌: Dave Dial, the page initially loads correctly with the series template below the infobox. As the page finishes loading, the series template suddenly pops up to the left of the infobox to the same misplaced location as earlier. This is with Google Chrome. The problem persists, at least for some. Dustin ( talk ) 04:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I use Chrome(Version 46.0.2490.86 m) and it's ok for me. I also tried Edge, Firefox and Safari. All seem to work. I have Windows 10. Don't know if any of these make the issue ok for me and not others, or a cache needs to be purged, but if the problems persist, the Pump needs to be aware. Thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, no problem here with Chrome and Windows 7 Pro. Tvoz / talk 06:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am still experiencing the aforementioned problem with Google Chrome, Windows 7 Home Premium. Dustin  ( talk ) 04:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama's birthplace
The article states that the president was born in Honolulu. Shouldn't it state that he was born in Kenya? Haresandhounds (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ.--JayJasper (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015
I would like to add some info that's need to bee updated

Txfgher (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ You have to explain what info you want updated. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin shooting
There is no mention of his famous Trayvon Martin speech which I think the media seized on for gun control legislation. (mostly liberal outlets) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.148.92 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't biographically significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe it's covered sufficiently on his subpages. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

honorific?
Why was The President's official formal title "The Honorable" off of his Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.122.77 (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should ask Viriditas, who removed it. There's some discussion here that might give some explanation, although why nobody saw fit to discuss it here is beyond me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto - no idea why this was put on my user talk page, hence my moving it. Tvoz / talk 16:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: That the president has this title is mentioned/wikilinked in the President of the United States article (in the infobox). I think the use of "The Honorable" here (that is, above the name in the infobox) should be the same for all US presidents, so I checked how we currently do this for Obamas 17 most recent predessessors (W. to Taft). 12 of those are without the title, like this article is now. 4 has the title, and Ike has "General of the Army". I suggest we make these articles consistently without a title, slightly supported by the spirit of WP:Honorifics and current practice in most US president articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the reasoning is that in the U.S. the honorific "The Honorable" is unofficial. In the British Commonwealth OTOH it is regulated by statute and can only be used when one holds an office.  (Former cabinet ministers remain "The Honourable" for life due to their continuing membership in privy councils.)  TFD (talk)

Sentence reorganization
I would like to establish consensus on this before changing the lead.
 * Current lead sentences: Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States, as well as the first African American to hold the office. Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review.
 * Proposed changes: Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. The first African American to hold the office, Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, serving as president of the Harvard Law Review.

MB298 (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current wording. Having the "first African American to hold the office" being in the second sentence would give the impression that the article is saying that he was the first African American to be president of the Harvard Law Review. If he was, then then that reference should be in both sentences. Regardless, it shouldn't be removed from the first sentence as he is the first African American President of the United States. SMP0328. (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see why MB298 would like to change it though. I would prefer this:
 * Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States, and the first African American to hold the office. Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review.
 * I hate "as well as" in a sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer the second wording. I'd also like to suggest that the Law Review Editorship be taken out of the opening paragraph. Its not really a defining characteristic of the subject's life. Juno (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please clarify what you mean by "second wording". The wording proposed by MB298, the wording proposed by me, or the current wording? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Barack Obama and the Enemies Within
Just noting its existence. It's about a book linking Obama to Communists, Marxists, anti-Americans etc. Doug Weller  talk 14:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As you note, there's already an article about this book, albeit one presently nominated for deletion. No action in particular required here at this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016
On January 4, 2016, the White House announced that Obama would sign Executive Actions in order to reduce gun violence.

StephenSanchez14 (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until Obama has actually done something, rather than writing about something still pending. Also, this is probably more suited to Presidency of Barack Obama, since it probably isn't biographically significant enough in an article about Obama's entire life. At least not at the moment, anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversial?
The talk pages for U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush carry the warning, “The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute…” Shouldn’t the talk pages for Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama carry the same warning?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Or it could be possible that the warnings on the other pages may not be needed. Are Regan and Bush Sr. a significant source of controversy these days?--65.94.253.160 (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article already has a form of that warning, and it is also under article probation. See the various messages at the top of the page. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

First sentence
This is the only article that doesn't start by describing the person as "... is an American politician currently serving as..." See David Cameron, Nicolas Maduro, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Justin Trudeau, etc. Is there a reason for this? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the change is a good idea, but I've altered your implementation of it a bit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Look much better! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... what do you think about "... is an American politician and lawyer currently serving..." Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He's not chiefly known for being a lawyer. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well he was a law professor for a large part of his career. Maybe "... is an American politician and law scholar currently serving..."? I can see how this would be a bit weird. It just seems like he has been a politician his whole life and never did anything else. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just don't think it is hugely important to shoehorn his lesser-known professions (lawyer, community organizer, author, scholar, professor) into the first sentence of the article. He is notable for being first and foremost a president, and secondly a politician. It is enough we cover his other professions in the next few sentences of that opening paragraph. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Keystone XL pipeline segment
Is OpEdNews a reliable source? This seems like it belongs in this article somewhere. I'm having a bit of difficulty comprehending all this without a nice diagram, but apparently some sort of Canada-to-Gulf-coast pipeline already got completed anyway through Enbridge-owned segments constructed thanks to an Executive Order and the segments of which managed to sidestep the NEPA review process entirely? Having a look at Enbridge's own pipeline maps, it appears they have a pipeline running from the Alberta tar sands all the way to Chicago, Illinois and then back to Cushing, Oklahoma to connect with the rest of the Keystone pipeline segments, effectively completing the ability to transport oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Perhaps a single sentence about this belongs in the Environmental Policy section?174.45.178.216 (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, anyone? I would presume this is probably a battleground article but I am a real person.174.45.178.216 (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source, write out what you would want added to the article. The proposed material can then be reviewed and, if acceptable, added to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read the above paragraph? Whether or not my source is reliable and whether or not something about this belongs in the article is precisely what I'm asking.174.45.178.216 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say no. This article is about Barack Obama, not the Keystone XL pipeline, and OpEdNews is basically a progressive version of the Drudge Report and thus unlikely to be considered a reliable source for much of anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an article tens of millions of people have read or will read and I’m excited to make it better. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Two things I would say here. First, this is a summary style article. That means it is essentially a summary of a lot of child articles (and for Obama, there are a lot). With that in mind, it is usually better to get the child articles right first and then summarize their content here. Of course that can make it difficult to weave it into a cohesive narrative, and that brings me to my second point. "Narratives" that tell a story, rather than simply describe events separately, have a tendency to approach or cross a line into synthesis. Any recasting of this article needs to take these two things into account, although I certainly think the goal is laudable. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, and those are both good points. I'm confident this can be a summary style article without devolving into listiness. Bill Clinton weaves together the various components of his presidency into something coherent. Second, there are established narratives that we can follow along with. Britannica, which remains by all means the model for a well-writen, expert encyclopedia, has already chronicled the 7 year history in a cohesive summary. Its general partitioning and themes would be a good inspiration for this narrative. The biographies that will be released in 2017 and beyond will provide solid historical accounts.
 * I will add that a good narrative will be informative enough to provide an effective summary. A good historical account (such as that of, say, the World War II will serve as a branching-off point for various sub-articles. But it will do so in a way that aids reader comprehension rather than jarring them with a laundry list of disparate topics. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2016
Dachshund man (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 00:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Obama Nobel prize
From the article:

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

This suggests that the director of the Nobel Institute feels that Obama is undeserving of the award, while the referenced article actually states that the director expected the honor to deliver a boost to Obama, something he believes did not happen. In other words its a failure of the award to boost Obama, not a failure of Obama as the Wikipedia article seems to suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.151.2 (talk) 14:21, November 29, 2015
 * ✅. Changed to "did not achieve desired effect". I didn't feel it was necessary to explain any further. The reader can now investigate what "the desired effect" was. At least the article no longer implies that awarding the Prize to Obama was "a failure". <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016
hi, im jayjaysofly1 and i just want permission to change his birthday every year, (age not the actual day.) And i would also like part ownership of this page... Only about 5%

Thats all thank you... please respond asap.Jayjaysofly1 (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need to manually update his age every year the software takes care of it automatically. No one has any ownership in any article, so no you can not have ownership of this article. -- GB fan 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Yoyo itszozo (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We report how reliable sources refer to him, even if other sources make a distinction between the terms. We would need multiple other sources that say he's not African American but rather Black. (On a side note, Eisenhower is arguably the first Black president if we're going by heritage and contemporaneous racial categories).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You should also read the Frequently asked questions at the top of the page. The consensus is against this change. -- GB fan 23:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Go to "For more information click [show]" and click "show" on that line. Then go to Q2 and click "show" on that line. SMP0328. (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Fox News
The argument above partly involves the reliability of Fox News on this subject. We actually have the article Fox News Channel controversies, which covers the bias and potential bias of this source in various cases. Keep this in mind when using this source, though it certainly is not blacklisted.

Scjessey, do you have other reliable sources to offer on the subject of the 2012 Benghazi attack? Dimadick (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me to find sources, because I'm not the one trying to add anything contentious to the article. I suggest you address your comments to those who wish to include this contentious and inaccurate material. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request 1 Mar 2015
Barack Obama's real name has been revealed to be Barry Soetoro. could you change his birth name to that?

184.169.125.170 (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that will not happen. -- GB fan 02:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

African American?
Technically, Mr Obama is of DIRECT African descent, so why is he listed as African American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.21.142 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2016


 * Please see Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ.--JayJasper (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think using such a large definiton of "African American" is misleading: there is a sharp difference between descendants of American slaves (aka "pure" African Americans) and other Black American citizens (Black Latinos, West Indians, etc.). Besides, Barack Obama is of East African descent while "pure" African Americans are of West African descent. In short, Mr Obama is neither culturally or ethnically related to the African American community. Quite ironically, he's actually more related to the WHITE American community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.17.129 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your opinion, but this isn't the place for a discussion about race or terminology. The FAQ addresses the matter, and explains how this has been long settled for our biography. Tvoz / talk 21:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agredd, this ship has long sailed.--67.68.163.7 (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Barrack Obama is considered as the first African American of the United States. So I think this conversation is more than relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.16.156 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed, reviewed, argued, debated and battled over ad infinitum, and it crops up every few months or so. You can find the extensive discussions in the archives of this talk page, but the article currently reflects a carefully worked out consensus and this FAQ was created to try to prevent future unnecessary discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

African American?
>the first African American to hold the office

>His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, born in Wichita, Kansas, was of mostly English ancestry.

I am sure that this has been brought up before, but I still do not understand it? Isn't it as correct to say that he is a white president as it is to say he is an African American. I think this needs to be worded better. Here are a few things I propose:

>the first person of mixed race to hold the office

>the first half  African American to hold the office

>the first person of both African American and White descent to hold the office

> first person of African American descent (if you cannot change it to the other ones, this is what it should be changed to)

These are all correct. The current statement, to my knowledge, is incorrect, but maybe I am wrong? Correct me if this is the case.

Beejsterb (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See FAQ question 2. Dave Dial (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Controversial tag
I recently added the tag to the article, because he has been the subject of significant controversy. The tags are on the articles of several recent presidents (Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and both Bushes). It was surprising when the tag wasn't on Clinton's article, due to the Lewinsky scandal, or even the Obama article, because Barack Obama is nowhere near as controversial as Bill Clinton however has generated some controversy (the citizenship controversy). MB298 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your point of view. Others' point of view may be that all of the controversy has been manufactured by political opponents. If you know that you have a point of view that is generally opposing the view of the subject of the article, then please remember that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and that we must put aside our own points of view while writing it. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not generally opposed to the policies of Barack Obama, just see Category:Obama administration controversies. It includes 56 in that category, with 4 subcategories. Ronald Reagan, who is tagged as "controversial", has 37 pages and 1 subcategory. Jimmy Carter, also tagged as "controversial", has exactly 9 pages in the category. It should be generally accepted that all recent U.S. Presidents are controversial. On List of controversial issues, Barack Obama is listed. MB298 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The tag is a perfectly acceptable tag to placed on the talkpage of controversial subjects (which Barack Obama is). Ordinarily, I would have absolutely no objection to it; however, this talk page already has tags noting it falls under article probabtion, that it is not a forum, that it is a biography of a living person, and that it is about an active politician. We have even setup a comprehensive FAQ to address the most controversial issues. All these combined render the  tag redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my objection, I appreciate MB298's reply, and I greatly appreciate Scjessey's well-stated reply. The tag should probably not appear (unless others wish to state better reasons to keep it). Best, Prhartcom (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Syria
I can't find anything about Syria in the "Foreign Policy" section. That seems like a fairly glaring omission, doesn't it? I think I may want to add one. Display name 99 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a summary style article. What we would normally do is write something like this up in Presidency of Barack Obama and then, if appropriate, briefly summarize it here. Having a Syria only section is probably an example of undue weight, but certainly as part of the broader Middle East issues it is worth looking at. That approach has already been taken here, but it looks difficult to summarize. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote a section on Syria and added it to the article. I tried to stay succinct and to limit its scope to what seems most relevant to Obama. CometEncke (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. I've trimmed, reorganized and copyedited it a little. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see you took out the part about the commander being kidnapped by al Nusra. I was undecided about that one, and I won't say you're wrong. I do think something needs to be said about what happened with the US effort. We shouldn't just leave it hanging. I'll make another try at that shortly.CometEncke (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming one of those sources backs up "minimal results" (I haven't checked), that looks much better. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does this article barely mention anything critical about Obama?
When I for example view the German Wikipedia page about Barack Obama it mentions the global surveillance disclosures or how under Obama the drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan continued and even got enlarged.

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

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

Also seriously under "Cybersecurity and Internet policy" the main part: "On February 12, 2013, President Obama signed Executive Order 13636, "Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity". The Executive Order is designed to increase the level of core capabilities for our critical infrastructure to manage cyber risk. It does this by focusing on three key areas: (1) information sharing, (2) privacy, and (3) the adoption of cybersecurity practices." Is directly taken from the source of the whitehouse, "The executive order is designed to increase the level of core capabilities for OUR critical infrastructure to manage cyber risk. (...) really? I mean really? Does it get any more biased and obvious? Dasnewhome (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See Presidency of Barack Obama, Barack Obama on mass surveillance, etc. If all of this was included in the main article (this one), it would be prohibitively large. clpo13(talk) 20:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That is a good point, but just so that some people might still consider some changes. The Article about former President George W. Bush includes the word 'critics' 10 times, whereas the word 'critics' isn't even mentioned once in the Article about Barack Obama. And the Article about George W. Bush also includes many sub-topics (or however you call them) with hyperlinks to the main articles: for example "Interrogation policies See also: Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture" So certainly this would also be applicable here Dasnewhome (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to make suggestions, but why don't you propose some actual changes here, so they can be discussed for possible inclusion. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion needs to focus on one specific issue at a time. This type of global complaint is not likely to go anywhere, regardless of whether the underlying complaint has merit or not.CometEncke (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand, I mean some of my complaint also lost merit after it was shown that there is another article specifically about Obamas presidency, I was just confused because the article about George W. Bush is very different in style and build. @WOLF Maybe it could already help to link to Presidency of Barack Obama at the top as it is done with ""Barack" and "Obama" redirect here. For his father, see (...)" etc? Anyway thanks for your time. I am not used to Wikipedia that's why I am not entirely sure about the processes and am afraid of making mistakes that would lead me to get banned (or offend someone which is really not my goal) That said, for my sake this can be closed(?) thank you again, and thank you for the nice welcoming message on my profile WOLF Dasnewhome (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Presidency of Barack Obama" is already linked by way of hatnote at the top the section "Presidency (2009 - )", which is where it belongs. If you look at the various sections, many of them have such notes. We can't just lump them all at the top of the article as it would take up too much space and look silly. And, after all, this article is about Obama and his entire life, not just his time at the White House. That said, don't be afraid to edit here, people don't get "banned" just for making mistakes. Be bold and give it a try. If you err, it can be fixed. People will give you guidance an as long as you abide the polices and guidelines, you'll be ok. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Presidency of Barack Obama" is already linked by way of hatnote at the top the section "Presidency (2009 - )", which is where it belongs. If you look at the various sections, many of them have such notes. We can't just lump them all at the top of the article as it would take up too much space and look silly. And, after all, this article is about Obama and his entire life, not just his time at the White House. That said, don't be afraid to edit here, people don't get "banned" just for making mistakes. Be bold and give it a try. If you err, it can be fixed. People will give you guidance an as long as you abide the polices and guidelines, you'll be ok. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit: just saw it was already linked under "Presidency (2009–present)", I was blind, I am sorry for the ruckus but thanks guys for taking the time to even humor my senseless grievance! Dasnewhome (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)