Talk:Barack Obama
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
Frequently asked questions
Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?
A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [1], [2], [3] The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)?
A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it?
A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common?
A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc?
A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?
A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?
A7: Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "[c]riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article!
A8: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy.
A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?
A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?
A11: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this?
A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly?
A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed!
A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article.
A15: That's understandable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted!
A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:
Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail?
A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | Bookmarks: |
 | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
New infobox portrait
[edit]The current official portrait used in the infobox is over a decade old, I propose a more recent image such as this one from 2023. Infobox portraits of living people should aim to show them closer to how they currently exist, rather than how they looked at their most important or best (that's for after they've died).
Lord Beesus (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentiment. The image on offer is satisfactory for our purposes. Dolphin (t) 07:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree with the sentiment. The submitted photo is fine for the purpose. Carlstak (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose. Check the WP:LEADIMAGEs for his predecessors and successors, granted that W. and Clinton are arguably the comparable ones, as in alive and haven't been president for awhile. WP:OTHERCONTENT, but IMO relevant, Obama being the only president without the official portrait as leadimage would be weird. This pic can have a home elsewhere in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- W. and Clinton should also definitely have more up to date lead images. Clinton (and Gore)'s are both over 30 years old and grossly misrepresentative of their current selves. I've put a similar motion up on the Clinton page. Wikimedia commons doesn't really have any decent more recent Gore photos though, otherwise I would be making the same suggestion there. Lord Beesus (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Disagree (at least on proposed image). The current image is satisfactory and is well suited to an encyclopedia. If there is another "official portrait"-quality image out there, then it's a good idea. But i personally don't think this image is an improvement in anything other than recency. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 20:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- no, a biography of a president should retain the last official portrait. this is a head of state and we should present a level of formality beyond what one finds on the bio of an instagram model. ValarianB (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Bill Clinton's last official portrait is over 30 years old, it would be ridiculous to argue that it should be prioritised over a high-quality newer portrait just because it isn't official. Lord Beesus (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Afaict, it's generally how we do it for these types of people, I guess it appears common sense/good enough to many Wikipedians. Consider Paul Keating and his successors. All the leadimages are either an official portrait or a pic from their tenure. The British PM:s are a sometimes a little different, but that seems to be because some of them gets new official portraits in their new job, like Theresa May is now a Lord Temporal. Yes, this is WP:OTHERCONTENT, but I'm trying to see a bigger picture here. I see no need to change this "convention". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Bill Clinton's last official portrait is over 30 years old, it would be ridiculous to argue that it should be prioritised over a high-quality newer portrait just because it isn't official. Lord Beesus (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
"Barry Soetoro" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Barry Soetoro has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 24 § Barry Soetoro until a consensus is reached. BarntToust 22:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Looking for information on Obama
[edit]Howdy, I was doing some research for an article and decided to check Barack Obama’s main Wikipedia entry for a full picture of his presidency. While going through the page, I noticed a few key topics were missing, even though they each have their own detailed Wikipedia articles. I found this a bit odd, considering similar topics are often summarized or at least mentioned in the entries for other presidents. Here’s what I mean:
Solyndra Investigation
There doesn’t seem to be any mention of this at all in Obama’s page. Main Article: Solyndra – Shutdown and investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Shutdown_and_investigation
Operation Fast and Furious
No mention here either, despite the size and impact of the scandal. Main Article: ATF Gunwalking Scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
IRS Targeting Controversy
This is another major event from Obama’s presidency that doesn’t seem to appear on the main page. Main Article: IRS Targeting Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
NSA Mass Surveillance Disclosures
These disclosures were international news and tied directly to the administration. Still, no mention. Main Article: Mass Surveillance in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States#2013_mass_surveillance_disclosures
I understand Wikipedia articles aim to be neutral and verifiable, and that not everything can be included. But these omissions stand out, especially when compared to how similar controversies are handled on the pages of other presidents. Just wanted to point this out in case the goal is consistency across biographical entries. Appreciate all the hard work the editing community puts in.
It was worthwhile to mention the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in Barack Obamas main wikipedia entry whilst it also has it's own wikipedia entry, wouldn't these other issues be worthwhile to include too?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Environmental_policy) WPisOpinion (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- This is the tip-of-the-iceberg article, and heavily summarized, and with long sub-articles like Presidency of Barack Obama and Economic policy of the Barack Obama administration (not to mention Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, but that's off-topic here). Taking your example Solyndra, it isn't mentioned in any of those, and my default assumption is that this indicates it's probably not WP:PROPORTIONate for this article. With a subject like a modern US president, there are easily available WP:RS for a lot of stuff that won't be mentioned in this article. You may or may not find this example of discussion interesting: Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_83#Why_is_the_Kunduz_hospital_airstrike_not_mentioned_anywhere?
- Sticking to the Solyndra example, what text do you suggest including, in what section, cited to what sources? You can make WP:BOLD edits, but you should know how to cite sources correctly first. If you don't, WP:INTRODUCTION can help with that. Per Solyndra, "In 2009, the Obama administration co-signed $535 million in loans to Solyndra." It seems they tried to do something to help the company and failed. And it was used against him: "In 2011 and 2012, during Obama's re-election campaign, the political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity spent $8.4 million in swing states on television advertisements denouncing the loan guarantee.[3] The Wall Street Journal described the advertising campaign as "perhaps the biggest attack on Mr. Obama so far."" For the purpose of the Barack Obama article, it doesn't IMO seem to be much of a muchness. But looking for information, Solyndra is mentioned in for example these WP-articles:
Categories:
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in People
- B-Class vital articles in People
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Top-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class District of Columbia articles
- High-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- B-Class Presidents of the United States articles
- Top-importance Presidents of the United States articles
- WikiProject Presidents of the United States articles
- B-Class US State Legislatures articles
- Low-importance US State Legislatures articles
- WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Top-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- United States articles used on portals
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Top-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Hawaii articles
- High-importance Hawaii articles
- WikiProject Hawaii articles
- B-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- B-Class Chicago articles
- Top-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class Columbia University articles
- High-importance Columbia University articles
- WikiProject Columbia University articles
- B-Class African diaspora articles
- Mid-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- B-Class Africa articles
- Mid-importance Africa articles
- B-Class Kenya articles
- High-importance Kenya articles
- WikiProject Kenya articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- B-Class 2010s articles
- Top-importance 2010s articles
- WikiProject 2010s articles
- B-Class law articles
- Top-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Spoken Wikipedia requests