Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.87.237.81 (talk) at 22:00, 6 January 2024 (→More Protection: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleBarack Obama is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004, and on November 4, 2008.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
December 21, 2007Featured article reviewKept
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 10, 2009Featured article reviewKept
March 16, 2010Featured article reviewKept
March 17, 2010Featured article reviewKept
June 17, 2012Featured article reviewKept
October 22, 2012Featured article reviewKept
December 4, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 4, 2013, November 4, 2016, and November 4, 2022.
Current status: Former featured article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

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

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

"Obamacare"

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

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

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

African American

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

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

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

"Barack Obama." listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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

"0bama" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Early life and career of Barack Obama

Hi,

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

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

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More Protection

I Find it Weird that his Page is Only Semi-Protected. It should Probably be Extended-Confirmed Protection. This is Because Some Troll User might Change his Birthplace to Kenya or something. 216.87.237.81 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=1194035345"