Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 84

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2024

{{subst:trim|1= [(X)Y]

Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. -->

 Not done: It's not clear what needs to be done, and the image you added is already in the article. ⸺(Random)staplers 17:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2024

Change

In July 2024, Obama encouraged efforts that lead to Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 presidential election, saying that his path to winning re-election had "greatly diminished." Obama did, however, praise Biden's work as president, saying that "Joe Biden has been one of America's most consequential presidents" and that Biden "wouldn't make this decision unless he believed it was right for America." He later endorsed presumptive nominee and vice president Kamala Harris.

To

In July 2024, Obama condemned the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump and called for a return to civility in U.S. politics. He also encouraged efforts that led to Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 presidential election, saying that Biden’s path to winning re-election had "greatly diminished." Obama did, however, praise Biden's work as president, saying that "Joe Biden has been one of America's most consequential presidents" and that Biden "wouldn't make this decision unless he believed it was right for America." He later endorsed presumptive nominee and vice president Kamala Harris. 2601:240:4180:CB80:151F:3ACD:A4CA:23CA (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Added as a separate sentence since the events aren't related, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It strikes me as bloat. Condemning an assassination attempt is par for the course. Nobody expected him not to condemn it. It is like expressing condolences. It is especially jarring as a standalone paragraph. Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2024

Change

In July 2024, Obama encouraged efforts that lead to Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 presidential election, saying that his path to winning re-election had "greatly diminished." Obama did, however, praise Biden's work as president, saying that "Joe Biden has been one of America's most consequential presidents" and that Biden "wouldn't make this decision unless he believed it was right for America." He later endorsed presumptive nominee and vice president Kamala Harris.

To

Obama condemned the assassination attempt on former President Trump on July 13, 2024, wishing Trump a quick recovery and called for a restoration of “civility and respect” in politics. Additionally, Obama encouraged efforts that led to President Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 presidential election, saying that his path to winning re-election had "greatly diminished." Obama did, however, praise Biden's work as president, saying that "Joe Biden has been one of America's most consequential presidents" and that Biden "wouldn't make this decision unless he believed it was right for America." He later endorsed presumptive nominee and vice president Kamala Harris. 2601:240:4180:CB80:5572:2442:68D0:5998 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. It appears you previously requested this edit, it was done, and then it was reverted by @Surtsicna: (see Special:Diff/1244062399 meamemg (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

He is not African-American!

He is American, but not descendant of American chattel slavery. 69.121.109.19 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Where is his father from? Who ever said that to be African American you must be descendant of American chattel slavery? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I know American racial labels are often illogical, but to say an American with an African father is not African-American is pushing that lack of logic too far. HiLo48 (talk)

He's widely (nearly universally) referred to as African American in the sources, so it's appropriate for us to use the term here. I was going to say that people who want to know about the nuances of meaning of the term can just click through to African-American and read about it there, but then I realized we had the link pointing to an article about African American presidents in pop culture. So I fixed that, and now anyone who wants to know the nuances of meaning of the term and its relationship with the history of American chattel slavery can click through to African-American which covers the subject in depth. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! -- LWG ^talk 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This view exist, see American Descendants of Slavery, but it is not atm the prevailing one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

He wasn’t president in 2017

Idk why it says that but it isn’t true 72.74.28.171 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

His term ended on January 20th, 2017, so he was still President during those nineteen days, plus twelve hours. CRBoyer 23:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2024 (2)

He was not the first African American President. Hamilton was. 74.70.210.158 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton was never the President.CRBoyer 23:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2024

In the section "Presidency -> Domestic Policy" the subheader for "Same-sex marriage" should be formatted as a subheader. Currently it is accidentally just normal text.

In the source:

Same-sex marriage

Should change to:

====Same-sex marriage==== Barrtender (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. The error seems to have been in the article for a while, thanks for pointing it out.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It has been reversed, correctly. The subheader level 5 looks like normal text on mobile, thus stands out like a saw thumb. Also on mobile you never get to see the nesting illustrated in the table of contents. Desktop is another story. Interestingly I checked the level of the heading directly above (LGBT rights) but didn't make the connection between the sections (probably my own bias considering same-sex marriage a civil fundamental civil right rather than an LGBT thing). Commander Keane (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

Check this particular edit: .

As a member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history.

Am I alone at thinking that this sentence is slightly confusing because it lacks the logical flow that is expected in a sentence starting with "As"? "As it's late, I'm going to bed". Or compare with these two examples that make a lot more sense in my opinion:

As the son of a Kenyan national, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history.

As a member of the Democratic Party, he was elected U.S. President.

I would suggest to go back to the original:

A member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president in U.S. history.

Thanks. Truc Bizarre (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Truc Bizarre I think it is fine as is, it implies he was a member of the Democratic party when he was president, he still is, but I think it is fine. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done I'm actually going to agree with Truc Bizarre here, the "as" infers a correlation between the two clauses that doesn't exist, so I removed it. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to replace Obama portrait

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

---

His hairline is uneven in 2012 portrait. 98.150.89.19 (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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

"Baraxk" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Baraxk 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/2024 December 11 § Baraxk until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"Barack O" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Barack O 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 January 1 § FirstName LastInitial redirects for presidents until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Change "African-Amereican" to Multiracial

Most Black Americans don't have immediate ancestors from Africa like Obama does. Not to mention Obama has mixed raced ancestry through his father and mother TheFloridaTyper (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

See Q2 of the FAQ for this article (also found at the top of this page). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we add a permanent-top-thread version of the faq, like at Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting? It's more visible, especially for mobile-users I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything could address the appalling logic of the OP here - that having an immediate African ancestor somehow prevents Obama being African-American. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There is this view around that people who weren't American slaves doesn't "count" when deciding who's African-American. Of course, on this website we go by "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." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Debra Dickerson wrote at one time "President Barack Obama, who is the son of a Kenyan immigrant, although technically African-American, is not black." Another time she wrote "African-American, in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves, because Obama is not a descendant of West Africans brought involuntarily to the United States as slaves, he is not African-American." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely a point of view that some people hold, and the wiki discusses that view at African_Americans#Terminology_dispute, but to justify changing what we say about Obama we would need to show that the consensus in the reliable sources is not to describe him as African American. In actual fact although a few sources take Debra Dickerson's point of view, most sources don't. If you think the article should follow Debra Dickerson's point of view, you need to show that her point of view is the consensus one among the reliable sources. -- LWG ^talk 16:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the term multiracial is used once in the article. I also don't believe the terms are mutually exclusive. Using the word more times in the article isn't necessarily a bad idea. Simply removing all references to the term African-American probably would be a bad idea. Does that make sense? Feel free to correct me. 1101 (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggested Addition to Legacy Section

I think that there should be added the following sentence to the "Legacy" section of the article:

"Obama’s presidency is often seen as a culmination in the U.S. history, with long lasting impacts on healthcare, foreign policy, and civil rights. His legacy continues to shape American politics, influencing debates on healthcare reform and global diplomacy."

This is supported by a citation from the article "Barack Obama’s Legacy: His Presidency and Impact" from The New York Times (published November 9, 2020). Marvelouzz (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Black, not African-American

Changed "African-American" to "Black" because not all African people are considered "Black". Is Brad Binder Black? Nope. White South Africans exist. I, myself, am an Afrikaner, and I sure as hell am not Black. Anonymous and proud (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The category of African Americans is clear if we are not pretending it means something other than what it means. For its use in this article, we defer to the language used by our sources, and Obama is most frequently described as an African American man. Remsense ‥ 论 12:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/not-all-black-people-are-african-american-what-is-the-difference/ 2603:6080:2100:D12B:240C:6A47:537C:B285 (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Brad Binder isn't Black, and he isn't African American either. He's South African. In the USA, the terms Black and African American are both commonly used with a variety of meanings, ranging from people descended from victims of American chattel slavery, to members of a subculture defined by that legacy, to any American with dark skin, to Americans with ancestral or cultural ties to Africa. Most of those categories apply to Obama, and he is widely described as African American by published sources. White Americans of African descent are not normally called African Americans by themselves or others, but even if they were, that wouldn't mean the term doesn't apply to Obama. -- LWG ^talk 17:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Most Black Americans (not including immigrants or those descended from them) are more likely to genetic relations with White Americans than they are with someone from Africa. That continent for most of its history never had a singular identity. African-American is a ridiculous term. TheFloridaTyper (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter, the term is already well established. Remember, Wikipedia aims to describe, not to prescribe. 2607:FEA8:529E:C300:A5F9:49C9:82BF:7CC5 (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not against adding the term Black to the article. However, considering Obama is Black, African-American, and multiracial (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think that existing terms should be mass-removed wholesale. If there are sentences where the word Black is more appropriate, feel free to point them out so we can bring them into the discussion. However, I am going to try to be numerically objective regarding your request.

A point against your request: it would cause inconsistency with the categories, many of which use the term African-American (12 times), not Black (0 times).

A point for your request: it would create consistency with the sources, some of which refer to the former president as Black (Further Reading: McClelland) (418: Wallace-Wells, "The Great Black Hope", 223: Dyson, "The Black Presidency") but apparently not as African-American (0 times).

Both points being taken, I'd say the change would create more consistencies (12) than it alleviates (3) unless the names of the categories (12) are also changed. However, that could create numerous inconsistencies between categories unless all of their names are changed. Therefore, that change affecting many more articles than this and possibly many categories not used in this article, I believe would require a larger discussion about Wikipedia conventions involving category names to take place first. Correct me if I'm wrong. ~~~ 1101 (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Barack Obama isn’t “African American” by the most rigorous definition of the term. He’s black and multiracial. “African American” should be reserved for black Americans who descended from slaves. Cchiare (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

"Should" is a matter of opinion, on this website we will follow what WP:RS (including him) generally calls him. Some people think Elon Musk should be called African American, but this website won't do that either, for the same reason. You may or may not find African_Americans#Terminology_dispute interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

"BHOII" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect BHOII 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 7 § BHOII until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

"Barry Soetoro" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

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:

• 2012 United States presidential election
• List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama (2010)
• 2012 United States federal budget
• Americans for Prosperity
• Fox News Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Isn't Obama American-African and not African-American?

I was under the impression African-American was specifically the group created as a result of slavery who don't know their exact heritage roots due to that and live most directly in the shadow of slavery, while American-African was from Post-Slavery immigrants from Africa and their children. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:BD3D:E205:3FFA:8185 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure that's a terminological distinction someone came up with and that has some use in discussing American race relations, but suffice it to say that it's not made by default by Americans in my experience. Remsense ‥ 论 22:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Seconding that in my experience, American-African is not a term that is actually used. Some people do use African-American in the more narrow sense you describe, but lots of people use the term more broadly, and most pertinently, the available reliable sources about Obama refer to him as African-American all the time, so we follow their lead here. -- LWG ^talk 22:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

See Q2 under "Frequently asked questions" above on this talkpage, African_Americans#Terminology_dispute, American Descendants of Slavery and for example The Wikipedia War That Shows How Ugly This Election Will Be.

Fwiw, some thoughts on "American-African" here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

New infobox portrait

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).

Obama in 2023

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)

• Oppose All living former presidents have their official portraits on display. Unless a more updated official portrait were to be released such as in the case of Theresa May or even John Kerry then yes. However seeing as how that's unlikely, there's no need to change the status quo of replacing outdated presidential portraits for recent ones. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2025

I want to reword this sentence: "He took 92 of the state's 102 counties, including several where Democrats traditionally do not do well" to "He took 92 of the state's 102 counties, including several where Democrats traditionally do not perform well" DevShep (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Libyan crisis

Hello,

The lead section of this paragraph contains the text

He also ordered the 2011 military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, contributing to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and the outbreak of the Libyan crisis.

The clause at the end about the Libyan Crisis was added recently, ostensibly per WP:CONTEXT. However, this clause is misleading and a violation of WP:NPOV. This is because it suggests that Obama's decision to intervene in the First Libyan Civil War and topple Gaddafi was a key cause of the outbreak of the Libyan crisis. In truth, the Libyan Crisis had already begun with Gaddafi's response to the Arab Spring protests, in which he ordered a violent crackdown on the protestors, before Obama or any other foreign actors got involved and decided to intervene. The Libyan Crisis article itself indicates in the first sentence that:

The Libyan crisis is the current humanitarian crisis and political-military instability occurring in Libya, beginning with the Arab Spring protests of 2011, which led to two civil wars, foreign military intervention, and the ousting and killing of Muammar Gaddafi.

Related articles such as Libyan civil war (2011), United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and 2011 military intervention in Libya indicate that the first civil war began with the initial Arab Spring protests on February 15, 2011, that the UN Security Council Resolution was adopted roughly a month later on March 17, 2011, and that military intervention began on March 19, 2011.

I therefore believe that the clause about the outbreak of the Libyan crisis should be removed. DeathTrain (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2025

2025 Intelligence Assessment Allegations

In July 2025, then–Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence alleging that former President Obama and senior intelligence officials, including James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey, played a direct role in the creation of a "false intelligence report" in January 2017. The report claimed that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump, was knowingly manipulated to undermine the incoming Trump administration. Gabbard described the ICA as "a tool to launch a years-long coup against President Trump and the American people."

These claims were met with skepticism by multiple independent observers. The Associated Press reported that the declassified documents did not contradict the ICA’s core findings regarding Russian influence efforts and found no direct evidence of a coup attempt. Similarly, FactCheck.org described Gabbard’s use of the term “coup” as misleading, noting that the documents largely reflected internal analytic disagreements rather than political sabotage. Blambert1313 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

At this point in time, fails WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTNEWS. Fwiw, your first link doesn't work for me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2025

Change

Obama attended the second inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2025.

To

On January 9, 2025, Obama attended the state funeral of Jimmy Carter, where his interactions with George W. Bush and Donald Trump gained significant media attention. Obama also attended the second inauguration of Donald Trump eleven days later. 173.165.17.93 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Remsense 🌈 论 17:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2025

Please add the following ref

<ref>{{cite news |last1=Ellington |first1=Andre |title=Biden And Obama Revive ‘BFD’ Joke To Celebrate Signing Of Inflation Reduction Act |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-barack-obama-twitter_n_62fd3df6e4b06389482f8e03 |access-date=14 September 2025 |work=HuffPost |date=17 August 2022}}</ref>

at the end of Barack_Obama#Thanks,_Obama. Thanks. --Xacaranda (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed it, IMO it fails WP:PROPORTION in this article, even with that source which only mentions it in passing. Consider mentioning it (not necessarily as a separate section) at Public image of Barack Obama. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Too many portals

Aren't we overdoing it, with the portals? GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

"Obamabarack" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Obamabarack 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 December 9 § Obamabarack until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Credit the author of the lead portrait?

I'm unsure whether this suggestion has been made before. Should we credit the person who took Obama's official portrait in the image caption? Thus, it would read, "Official portrait, 2012, by Pete Souza". I think it best to recognize the author if we are to use their artwork and make readers aware of their work, even if it lengthens the caption. Note that this suggestion can apply to other articles on US presidents and politicians in general. Thank you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, he's credited on the image page. It's not outlandish since he has a WP-article, and I've certainly seen WP:LEADIMAGE-captions like Women in the Bible, but afaict we just don't do this with leadimage-photos, unless in special circumstances like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Donald Trump raised-fist photographs (not Mug shot of Donald Trump though). There is no such credit for Obamas successors or ten (at least) most recent predecessors, and I see no good reason to start here, it would just look odd. I note the leadimage caption at Donald Trump, though. And why treat US politicos different than other politicos/people? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

"Youtube candidate" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Youtube candidate 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 December 22 § Youtube candidate until a consensus is reached. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 17:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)