![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | ← | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | → | Archive 80 |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OK, How is this: Under the "Economics" section, please remove the word "unprecedented" from the following sentence: "By passing the legislation, Congress was able to prevent an unprecedented U.S. government default on its obligations." 1 2 3 4 Does this work? Meshiah ( talk) 13:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. There's a discussion of the redirects Maobama and Chairman Maobama at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#Maobama, if anyone is interested. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 15:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I think discussions on this page should be purged less often. 140.177.205.223 ( talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is "Hussein" missing from The President's name in this article's title?
The articles on John Wilks Booth is not titled "John Booth", and the article on Lee Harvey Oswald is not titled "John Oswald".
Please explain...? 75.202.62.37 ( talk) 11:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Got away from the subject raised and devolved into a pissing match. If there are concerns about editor behavior or content disputes, dispute resolution or WP:ANI is thataway. Tarc ( talk) 20:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@75.202.62.37: The answer is this: Wikipedia articles are titled after the most common name in English. Most people know him as "Barack Obama". People rarely use his middle name. In the case of John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, people rarely exclude their middle name. So, basically, it's whatever the most common name is in English. For more information about how Wikipedia titles their articles, please see WP:COMMONNAME. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
A user has reverted the following, which I added to first days:
An analysis by Bloomberg News indicates that his administration has failed to follow the requirements of the Act. [1] White House spokesman Jay Carney defended the President's record, stating that the Administration has shown "unprecedented transparency." [2]
Now I can agree that it doesn't really fit into first days. The problem here is that by including Obama's initial transparency order, without including the follow-on, the article gives a misleading impression. How can we handle that? William Jockusch ( talk) 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Perennial request, answered adequately both here and in the FAQ above. Move along, please. Tarc ( talk) 18:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Mr. Obama is not the first Black President. He is the first Mulatto/Mixed/BiRacial President, perhaps even more significant. To designate him otherwise is to ignore and obscure the significant contributions of his mother and his mother's family. Mr. Obama's father is remembered by the President for the single month they spent together in December 1971, when the President was 10 years old. [3] 71.196.239.231 ( talk) 04:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Obama is mixed race but self identifies as Black or African American. Put his picture up and cover up his eyes so you can't tell it is the President and most people will also say that the photo is that of a Black man. Wawaxi ( talk) 01:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Before every election, Obama has coverage, as does other politicians' articles. Except there is no coverage about Obama's state senate. I will fix that. There is a little negative to it but only because it is fact. There should not be a whitewash of negative fact as Wikipedia is not a pro-Obama campaign office, but overly negative for the sake of attacking the man is also not right either.
Basically, CNN, the Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal and New Yorker agree that Obama got all challengers kicked off the ballot so he would be unopposed. I did not look up Fox News because they suck. Disclaimer: I am neutral, not an American, and editing from a foreign oountry. Wawaxi ( talk) 00:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
State Senate campaign
Obama ran against several challengers for the Democratic primary, including incumbent Alice Palmer. However, he successfully challenged all of his opponents and had them removed from the ballot by questioning the validity of petitions to have them on the ballot. As a result, he was able to run unopposed. Some news organizstions refered to this strategy as "Chicago politics".[49][50][51]
Undue weight? Seems like complete omission of the election. I can see why some may not want any mention because it is negative info. Maybe it can be written in the best possible light but no mention sounds fishy. Axelrod, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer 1991 ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
As for the wikipedia article, there is an election section in all of his races except this one. it is clear that phony excuses are being made. It is possible to write a less negative bent but partisans will have not of that.....please cooperate for sake of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer 1991 ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
CORRECTION Jennifer1991: Obama is tied in most swing states and this election is very close. Wikipedia is not some campaigning tool, so take that elsewhere please. 70.178.153.27 ( talk) 00:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
See: http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/02/news/economy/october-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 "Unemployment inched up to 7.9% in September 2012." It should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.186.96.98 ( talk) 15:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the feedback being utilized to improve the article? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Barack_Obama&ref=cta#582432
I believe it is in die need for Featured Article Review which the consensus is to begin on November 6, 2012 – Election Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 ( talk) 03:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I found the problem==the bot prematurely closed the FAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 ( talk) 03:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is lacking info about possible federal felony. This is not a part of the Romney campaign(I won't give my vote to anyone racing today), but every article in Wikipedia, about USA citizen(and especially because of USA privacy law), who maybe probably broke law have this type of info. Why public person, especially politic shouldn't have this?
As written above Maraniss, who won a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 1993, claims that Obama used mariljuana in high school(
source). Mr Obama never said that this is false(e.g. but not only'On Bill Clinton's personal triangulation that he had tried marijuana but "didn't inhale," Obama said smiling in 2006, "That was the point, wasn't it?"'), and probably this may be a felony, which of course he currently have law protection because of current seat. Especially there is no difference between nowadays and decades ago, because this law is more than 75 years old(
source).
You can say of course that this is somewhere in the article, but possible violation of federal law should be, like in other biography articles written under other paragraph, also with addition that no criminal charges was sued by federal officers because of the "over-the law shield of the highest politics seat". E.g. protected are candidates and winning people, and thing emerged on the surface during successful campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.13.170 ( talk) 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Instead of just saying Obama is a 'Christian', something that I think every US president, Vice President would say they were, I have included his 'brand' of Christianity, making it consistent with every other article about a US president. Rodchen ( talk) 00:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, seeing no objection, that is what I will do. Rodchen ( talk) 04:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't figure out how to do it without making it 'red' in color. When I figure it out, I will make the change. Saying 'United Church of Christ, later Unaffiliate Christian' seems the most accurate. Other comments? Rodchen ( talk) 04:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The last we know, he was United Church of Christ and reliable sources should list this. However, if we want to do OR (original research), we can put "United Church of Christ (2008 citation)". Actually, CNN did an article yesterday about Obama possibly moving closer to Christianity. The CNN article speculated that this could be because he's had more contact with mainstream pastors in recent years. Rev. Wright was a special and politically connected Chicago pastor and had slightly different theology. Auchansa ( talk) 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Gallup, 5 days ago 51% Romney 46% Obama
Should there be a section to provide this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 ( talk) 03:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Gallup does have Romney leading Obama by that amount, but I agree with the people above that this is not an election article. Whatever the outcome of the election may be it will all be printed on the article for the 2012 US presidential election and on the articles for both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, regardless of whoever ends up winning. Polls leading up to the election will also be printed after the election is over. 70.178.153.27 ( talk) 07:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree
Eu sou portugues 454 (
talk) 22:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Any particular reason why Romney's name is mentioned but once in the article, as part of a source name? I would change the article, but was wondering if campaign matter had been moved to respective pages. dci | TALK 03:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Did people experience frequent 5xx errors (e.g.
HTTP 504) on this article today?
Nemo 07:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't Obama's real fathers & mothers name and backgrounds mentioned with this information? What is there to hide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.84.113 ( talk) 03:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It say's Obama is the first African-American president but isn't that a bit incorrect or lacking.
He is the first bi-racial president? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.145.120.132 (
talk) 02:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Obama won the election. An administrator should update this.
Already done --
Webclient101
talk 04:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Magma armor0 ( talk) 05:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
He just did — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.137.215 ( talk) 06:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Obama has not won a second Presidential term. He has won more than the 270 delegates to electoral college, necessary to be elected to a second term. Saying he has won a second term is factually false, and misrepresents the US electoral system. When the electoral college meets and votes, then presumably Obama will be elected to a second term, but not before
RevDan (
talk) 03:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From the current article: "on November 6, 2012, he defeated Republican nominee Mitt Romney to win a second term" and "On November 6, 2012, Obama was elected to a second term as president."
From President of the United States: "the president is indirectly elected by the people through the Electoral College to a four-year term". So what has Obama won? Only electors in the Electoral College (United States), from the same article "no elector is required by federal law to honor a pledge". This is not only a book example that couldn't happen in real life as there were many Faithless electors in the past. To sum up I suggest to remove the above two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.161.125 ( talk) 11:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that Obama's election will not be recognized. -- Doyouevenlift84 ( talk) 13:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
RevDan ( talk) 22:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
To be super-precise, he won the vote (apparently) but the results have not been ratified by the electoral college (something that is not an election). Right? - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
SMP and Dezastru have it right. We had the same conversation four years ago about whether to call him "President-elect" or "presumptive President-elect" or "President-designate" between the election and the Electoral College meeting, and our conclusion, as I recall, was to go with standard, logical Wikipedia practice and policy, which is to say: follow the sources, not anyone's original research about the mechanics of the Electoral College process. As it was then, the case now is that all reliable sources say he has been re-elected, the technicality of getting through the Electoral College notwithstanding. This is s silly dispute, and not helpful to the improvement and maintenance of this article. The purpose of this article is to give our readers a biography of the man and his career, not to teach them about the vagaries and terminology of a fairly obscure process, about which they can read at the appropriate article. All sources say he was re-elected - he is already President, so "President-elect" would be confusing and unnecessary. He will be President until January 20 at which time he will be sworn in again as President in a seamless manner. There is no point in this. Tvoz/ talk 07:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add specific date of November 6, 2012 instead of just November, 2012 for The President's re-election. Please change the above mentioned content Ritviksharda ( talk) 22:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/this_is_no_way_to_get_us_up_running_egrMk4ukpzFCGhSF8oM5kN/0 It should be covered how Obama as a president handle the causes of this major hurricane, what is currently the second costliest hurricane in US history. It looks like not very satisfactory, add to the article "In addition to the generators, a food services truck dropped off hundreds of cases of water, sparking angered responses from hurricane victims." One victim from Coney Island said that: "People have no food, no water, nothing.". Not speaking about the 113 deaths in USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.190.81 ( talk) 09:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Wait, so a food services truck "dropped off hundreds of cases of water" - and this angered the victims, who claim to have no water or food? Huh? Psychonavigation ( talk) 02:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Date is wrong on photo. Unable to fix myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.193.201 ( talk) 11:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Done Thanks! --
MST☆
R
(Chat Me!) 11:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I
revised two inaccurate Trinity United Church of Christ sentences in the "Religious views" subsection:
from:
Obama was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, and was an active member there for two decades.[323]
He resigned from Trinity during the presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.[324]
323. Kantor, Jodi (April 30, 2007). "Barack Obama's search for faith". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30 2007.
324. "Obama's church choice likely to be scutinized". Associated Press. msnbc.com. November 17, 2008. Retrieved January 20, 2009.
to:
Obama met Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright in October 1987, and became a member of Trinity in 1992.[323]
He resigned from Trinity in May 2008 during his first presidential campaign after controversial statements by Wright were publicized.[324]
323. Garrett, Major; Obama, Barack (March 14, 2008). "Obama talks to Major Garrett on 'Hannity & Colmes'". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved November 10, 2012. "Major Garrett, Fox News correspondent: So the first question, how long have you been a member in good standing of that church? Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), presidential candidate: You know, I've been a member since 1991 or '92. And -- but I have known Trinity even before then when I was a community organizer on the South Side, helping steel workers find jobs…Garrett: As a member in good standing, were you a regular attendee of Sunday services? Obama: You know, I won't say that I was a perfect attendee. I was regular in spurts, because there was times when, for example, our child had just been born, our first child. And so we didn't go as regularly then."
- Associated Press (April 29, 2008). "Obama denounces former pastor". MSNBC.com. Retrieved November 10, 2012. "I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992, and have known Reverend Wright for 20 years," Obama said. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."
- Miller, Lisa (July 11, 2008). "Finding his faith". Newsweek. Retrieved November 10, 2012. "He is now a Christian, having been baptized in the early 1990s at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago."
- Remnick, David (2010). The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 177. IBSN 978-1-4000-4360-6. "In late October 1987, his third year as an organizer, Obama went with Kellman to a conference on the black church and social justice at the Harvard Divinity School."
- Maraniss (2012), p. 557: It would take time for Obama to join and become fully engaged in Wright's church, a place where he would be baptized and married; that would not happen until later, during his second time around in Chicago, but the process started then, in October 1987...Jerry Kellman: "He wasn't a member of the church during those first three years, but he was drawn to it, he was drawn to Jeremiah."
324. Associated Press (November 17, 2008). "Obama's church choice likely to be scrutinized". MSNBC.com Retrieved January 20, 2009.
Newross ( talk) 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing here about the US Ambassador being murdered and the President's response about it being because of a youtube video. Shouldn't something be added? 96.240.179.53 ( talk) 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
And this isn't the Obama campaign site either. I don't think there is anything wrong with simply mentiong the Benghazi affair as long as it is done in a neutral way without placing any direct blame. The affair is a controversial issue that does have stronger evidence of negligence on the part of the Obama Administrationin it. Secretary of State Clinton has also taken the fall for it, and the parents of two of the four killed are blaming Obama for their son's murders. Just mention those facts without making it sound like campaigning. 70.178.153.27 ( talk) 01:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you are trying to be political here. FOUR PEOPLE DIED UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!! FOUR PEOPLE DIED, INCLUDING AN AMBASSADOR OBAMA WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING!! That is much different than Obama making stupid comments or refusing to wear a lapel pin. 70.178.153.27 ( talk) 08:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a very good issue to bring up since there is a lot of controversy surrounding this one issue. There were emails leaked that showed the white house had received calls for help prior to the killings and Clinton even owned up to them. This was reported on every news agency for a time. This was definitely a different issue for this administration vs. previous administrations. This incident can be cited by any news agency and can be written in a neutral manner without making outright accusations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/
70.178.153.27 ( talk) 08:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
A mention of the incident is fine with me but the details of the event are still under investigation so adding details here when they're still changing on the wiki page of the actual event would be pointless. These sorts of things are normally left for several months so the information is clear and accurate Pongley ( talk) 14:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I know the election's over now, but if this was perceived as such a significant issue related to Obama's continued tenure as president, wouldn't it be more suitable for the 2012 US election article (note that it may already be there, I haven't actually checked)? Just my "two cents", as they say. Incidentally, I'm glad it's Obama again. Peace :). Psychonavigation ( talk) 02:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Obama does not presonally manage embassy security as has been said by the US government, attributing every single event to Obama makes no sense. I am glad that Obama won, Romney would do something stupid, his foreign policy is awful, if he managed to upset us Brits so much I wouldn't want to see him trying to negotiate with Iran or China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsdh1 ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's keep this objective... I'd argue in summation that there are two excellent arguments against inclusion made in here- 1) Thekithless argued that this has happened under every president's tenure... yet we don't see POLITICALLY CHARGED comments on any other president's page saying how each prez is a blockhead and 2) Fdsdh1 pointed out well that Obama doesn't handle embassy security... just because something happened under Obama doesn't mean that it's his fault... not to mention that Patraeus is taking tons of fire for his actions on the attack. Prove these two points beyond a doubt and you can have your tiny precious section on Benghazi... 71.64.111.100 ( talk) 03:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_place_of_birth#cite_note-10
Hey, well you're the one who started complaining. Also, you talking about user conduct; look who is displaying vulgar conduct now, using profanity and the likes while being rudely accusatory.--ɱ
First warning to Scjessey for personal attacks and incivility. If you post similar posts here, on edit summaries, and on other talk pages, and continue to revert without proper reasons in the edit summaries, I will be reporting you to ANI for disruptive editing and personal attacks/incivility. Regarding the inclusion request, that is trivial and not notable. - M0rphzone ( talk) 20:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest to include: "The first reelcted black president." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.226.247.18 ( talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The figure showing the change in unemployment (as well as the net change creation by month) is misleading because the right axis is label improperly. The right axis only shows a small range of unemployment values and thus makes it look as if unemployment has returned to "normal". The specific change I would request is to remove this figure and replace it with one that show either the full range of unemployment starting at zero or the starting at the historical minimum for unemployment. 78.40.152.129 ( talk) 13:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I
corrected an inaccurate first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede section by
Joker123192 (
talk |
contribs):
from:
Obama first received national attention for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, and his subsequent election to the United States Senate in November 2004.
to:
Obama received national attention during his 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate election campaign with his March primary victory, which intensified with his July keynote address at the Democratic National Convention and November election to the United States Senate.
which is an accurate summary of the text in the "U.S. Senate campaign" section of this Wikipedia article:
In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide—which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party, started speculation about a presidential future, and led to the reissue of his memoir, Dreams from My Father.[66] In July 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention,[67]
seen by 9.1 million viewers. His speech was well received and elevated his status within the Democratic Party.[68]
66. Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state". Chicago Tribune. p. 1.
- Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born". The New York Times. p. A20.
- Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate". USA Today. p. A04. '
- Scheiber, Noam (May 31, 2004). "Race against history. Barack Obama's miraculous campaign". The New Republic. pp. 21–22, 24–26 (cover story).
- Finnegan, William (May 31, 2004). " The Candidate. How far can Barack Obama go?". The New Yorker. pp. 32–38.
- Dionne Jr., E.J. (June 25, 2004). "In Illinois, a star prepares". The Washington Post. p. A29.
- Scott, Janny (May 18, 2008). "The story of Obama, written by Obama". The New York Times. p. A1.
- Mendell (2007), pp. 235–259.
67. Bernstein, David (June 2007). "The Speech". Chicago Magazine. pp. 80-83, 121-129.
68. . (August 2, 2004). "Star Power. Showtime: Some are on the rise; others have long been fixtures in the firmament. A galaxy of bright Democratic lights". Newsweek. pp. 48–51.
- Samuel, Terence (August 2, 2004). "A shining star named Obama. How a most unlikely politician became a darling of the Democrats". U.S. News & World Report. p. 25.
- Lizza, Ryan (September 2004). "Why is Barack Obama generating more excitement among Democrats than John Kerry?". The Atlantic Monthly. pp. 30, 33.
- Davey, Monica (July 26, 2004). "A surprise Senate contender reaches his biggest stage yet". The New York Times. p. A1.
- Leibovich, Mark (July 27, 2004). "The other man of the hour". The Washington Post. p. C1.
- Milligan, Susan (July 27, 2004). "In Obama, Democrats see their future". The Boston Globe. p. B8.
- Seelye, Katharine Q. (July 28, 2004). "Illinois Senate nominee speaks of encompassing unity". The New York Times. p. A1.
- Broder, David S. (July 28, 2004). "Democrats focus on healing divisions; Addressing convention, newcomers set themes". The Washington Post. p. A1.
- Bing, Jonathan; McClintock, Pamela (July 29, 2004). "Auds resist charms of Dem stars". Variety. p. 1.
- Mendell (2007), pp. 272–285.
This is the fourth time Joker123192 ( talk | contribs) has made the same inaccurate and contentious change to the lede section ( 10 September 2012, 13 September 2012, 19 September 2012, 12 November 2012) without consensus or talk page discussion to content which had been stable for three years (see Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 75#Major changes to lede). Newross ( talk) 15:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Tvoz's revision is fine with me since it does not change the content and is an accurate summary of the "U.S. Senate campaign" section. Newross ( talk) 18:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If somebody has an official estimate, then probably it would be worth to include in the article. Not impossible to get this info, just read the numbers for Bush: http://www.wgbh.org/News/Articles/2012/11/17/Do_We_Really_Need_A_Second_Inauguration.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.94.25 ( talk) 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has removed "intensified" a few times regarding the 2004 keynote as well as the phrase about the victory over Romney being a closer margin - I previously asked that this be discussed first, as per the section above, rather than removing it with edit summaries like "more concise". Yes it is more concise, but it also is removing content. So, can we please get some consensus on this. Thanks. Tvoz/ talk 22:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
— Sowlos ( talk) 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, which intensified with his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July and his election to the Senate in November.
orIn 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, which intensified with his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July and his election to the Senate in November.
both accurately summarize the content of the "U.S. Senate campaign" section. Newross ( talk) 22:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July and his election to the Senate in November.
The sentence "He is the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win two successive presidential elections with a majority of the popular vote." is factually wrong. Please change "majority" to "absolute majority". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabana85 ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with William Jokusch. Why keep a factually wrong sentence when its content wouldn't even be that relevent at all?
Without that context, this factoid is misleading as to the historical record, as well as being such an obscure bit of trivia that it would appear on almost no-one's list of Top Five Obama Firsts. rewinn ( talk) 16:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the article clearly states Obama is of English (mother) desent and African (father) therefore he is not African -American. The title should be ommitted or added as "and/or English American. Perhaps if the country understood this, they wouldnt be so quick to point out the skin colour differenct.
Adamkingdon1975 ( talk) 13:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The enquirer should look at the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of the page. Click on [Show].) Q2 applies. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
There have been several categories that seem to have been applied to the Barack Obama article in contravention of the categorization guidelines. Two specific examples are "African-American Christians" and "Presidents of the United Nations Security Council."
According to the Categorization guideline, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people)." The guideline gives as an example: " 'Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...', Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio." The Overcategorization guideline says that "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided," and further states that "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining."
Obama is unquestionably African-American and Christian. But is his being an African-American Christian one of his defining characteristics?
Same question with his having been the President of the UN Security Council. Is this a defining characteristic? United Nations Secretaries-General would be a category reflecting a truly defining characteristic — for an article on Kofi Annan or Ban Ki-moon. But that's very different than the case with the Security Council president, which, for those years that the US holds the presidency, is usually occupied by the US ambassador to the UN, not by the US president. The US president takes that role only, as a technicality, when present at Security Council meetings. Dezastru ( talk) 00:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If these facts are verifiable, then why not include them? ChromaNebula (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
See below the list of categories:
How the same subject can be at the same time top and mid importance, or even low and top importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.226.246.190 ( talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be more accurate to say "first half African American to hold the office" rather than "first African American..." African American implies he is full; however, he is not. 166.137.191.26 ( talk) 18:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done
Tvoz/
talk 19:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Does this president have an official portait/oil painting of him, courtesy of the White House? Could it not also be included? Journalbug ( talk) 07:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Presidents do not get their official painting until after they leave office, usually in some sort of ceremony. Bush received his this year. The photo of Obama that is on this article right now is his official picture. There's a portrait and a photograph.-- Xxhopingtearsxx ( talk) 06:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Please add: "Under Obama administration the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history was the mass murdering at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Furthermore the Aurora shooting with 12 deaths and 59 injuries made the most victims of any mass shooting in United States history in the same year.
(ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/state-police-respond-to-report-of-school-shooting-in-newtown-conn-lockdown-in-place/2012/12/14/df59a9aa-4602-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html and http://www.kptv.com/story/19071381/james-eagan-holmes-court-appearance-dark-knight-rises-shooting )
And possibly write about the liberal gun control policy. In the recent year(s) there are too much rampage killings and with unexpectedly more deads/victims so that not writing about this in wikipedia would raise many red flags for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.177.25 ( talk) 00:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have been criticized too many times for WP:SYNTH to know that sandy hook / obama's gun control policy is wp:synth & should not be added here. Angelatomato ( talk) 00:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Most articles have a section above sources. I looked and couldn't find any, which made me think there were none. Prevent this by making it predictable about where to find these links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Please add: " Joseph Stalin also named twice (in 1939 and 1942) as a Person of the Year, moreover Adolf Hitler was the Person of Year in 1938."
Just to illustrate that it is not a prize or award like Nobel Peace Prize. And people often regard this as an honor from Time magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.186.114.111 ( talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The Aptostichus barackobamai Bond, 2012: The new spider species of the genus Aptostichus from California in ( http://species-id.net/wiki/Aptostichus_barackobamai : The specific epithet is a patronym in honor of Barack Obama, first African American President of the United State and reputed fan of spiders). Thanks -- Kmoksy ( talk) 11:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This sentence is not necessary in the leading paragraph. Remove it. Cheisu7 ( talk) 16:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a continuing effort to put trivia about the Democratic Party into the lede, something about Obama being the first Democrat since FDR to win two terms with a popular vote majority both times. An attempt at balance was struck by citing also to Reagan, making the trivia at least bipartisan, but that was also deleted. I reverted the lede to include both (although better would be to include neither.) For the record, there has been only ONE case in which a member of the Democratic Party between FDR and Obama was re-elected, and in that ONE case the election was by popular vote plurality; between Reagan and Obama there is NO CASE in which a candidate of ANY party was elected twice with a majority of the popular vote ... which is surely a much more significant factoid. If the lede is to be cluttered with trivia, let it be non-partisan trivia. rewinn ( talk) 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I ran across the article Obama effect, which seems to me to be a bit unnecessary as a standalone article, but something which should definitely not be ignored. What do you all think about moving it over as a sentence or two in this article? Prodego talk 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/30/politics/obama-meet-the-press/index.html
Add something from these sentences: "Obama said he hopes that the Newtown killings spur Americans to take action and not let the shootings feel like "one of those routine episodes," the emotions of which fade with memory. ""It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that, you know, that was the worst day of my presidency," he said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.189.208 ( talk) 18:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that Obama being the first African american to hold this position be changed to the correct term Mulata,or Bi racial president to hold this position. The reason and the proof are evident Thank you
Chris Bordenkircher 71.3.89.237 ( talk) 00:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last sentence of the second paragraph regarding the early life of Barack Obama. "From ages six to ten, Obama attended local Indonesian-language schools: St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School for two years and Besuki Public School FROM one and half years, ...". There is a misuse of preposition. the FROM should be replaced by for. Chongminwang ( talk) 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Dodd-Frank in domestic or economic policy? One of Obama's key pieces of signed legislation.
"The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) was signed into federal law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshboyette ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/14/world/africa/mali-france-us/index.html Please add: "U.S. could provide logistical, intel support in Mali"
It could be Obama's next bloody war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.33.176 ( talk) 00:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles for most modern politicians contain approval/disapproval graphs ( Hillary Rodham Clinton, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton are just a few examples of this), yet I see no such images regarding the current president's approval/disapproval ratings. I suggest that one be added to this article to help readers to visualize President Obama's public opinion over the course of his presidency.-- Philpill691 ( talk) 16:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
According to a birth document, right? -- 41.151.178.228 ( talk) 11:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you a birther? How about you? Do you have a birth document? One that proves you were born from human parents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.148.18 ( talk) 16:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Read the FAQ, please |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
He introduced as Barack H. Obama, like on the first inauguration. I would suspect that this is his official name, so please change the article's title! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.108.35 ( talk) 23:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This is such a non-discussion, of which for starts I'm wondering whether it would even take place were his middle name not "Hussein" and which has been discussed ad nauseam in the past. There is a difference between an occasion as taking the presidential oath, when one's full name is used, and the every day name with which that person is associated. I don't see anybody wanting to rename the article about "Bill Clinton" as "William J. Clinton" or "William Jefferson Clinton", whereas that's his full name. The full name is mentioned in the article but is not the main artcile title. The same standard applies to President Obama. -- fdewaele, 22 January 2013.
|
Please think long and hard before adding new categories to the article. The latest addition (which I reverted) was "gun control advocates". Besides the standard BLP-related categories, I think this article should only go into categories for which Barack Obama is notable. For example, he is not notable for being an American of Irish descent and he is not notable for being an African-American Christian. I reverted recent additions to both of these as well. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Why does the bold name at the beginning of the article not have "President" in front of "Barack Hussein Obama II?" Titles, such as "Prince" or "Queen," are often found before the subject's name and included in the bold lettering. However, Queen Elizabeth II's page does not have any title before her bold name. I've also wondered what the reason for that was. Thanks. DrAndrewWinters ( talk) 23:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ye Olde Drivel Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why doesn't this wiki have a disclaimer asking for further verification of information? There is no disclaimer about his actual birth certificate being questionable, as the State of Hawaii has not released the actual document, and it's existance is still in question, as the 3 citations are (1). A scanned questionable document dated 2011 that is full of ghost images, mismatched fonts, and obvious corrections to letters and numbers. (2). 2 news articles dated 2008 and 2011 respectivly. Why is there no disclaimer about the marriage between his mother and supposed father, Barack Obama Sr.? Why no cite of the certificate of marriage from the state of Hawaii? It's public record. The citations are 2 seperate citations, between 4 people, one of which is a book without any kind of proper vetting or documentation, and the other cite doesn't even cite a work, just random page numbers attributed to 3 different people. Why is there no disclaimer about his adoption by his mother's second husband, and the name change to Barry Soetoro, to register him in a school in Indonesia? Why is there no disclaimer of his college years at Occidental College, and his association with known Muslim agitators, and the apparent use of non-resident funds to pay for school? Why is there no disclaimer about his lack of editorial work while at Harvard, and every cite noted is from various news articles, but not a single refrence from Harvard. This page has too many questions to be called authoritative. AnAmerican1776 ( talk) 18:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC) |
Damn. I wish there was somewhere we could put this picture of Obama skeet shooting. How about the section on the death of bin Laden? LOL. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
This isn't even funny. — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you think about adding the picture of Barack holding a gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.239 ( talk) 01:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
That would be important information if Obama is an avid gun owner. Besides, the basketball photo, I don't see much about his hobbies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.239 ( talk) 03:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
If that isn't enough, just google "Obama gun control", check out the new articles, and then try and tell me with a straight face he isnt a gun control advocate... IronKnuckle ( talk) 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This is covered under WP:COP#N. We must try to limit the number of categories before it gets out of hand again. Pretty soon it will be Category: People who have met George Clooney or some other bollocks. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. He isn't known for being a supporter of gun control (it's quite recent), and to date, he hasn't done anything other than say he supports it. — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 22:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
See: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/obama-calls-on-boy-scouts-to-welcome-homosexuals.html .Please add for example: "President Obama called on the Boy Scouts to open their ranks to homosexuals."
And consider to open a new section about Obama's view on gays. So far we have lots of context about this but these are spread in the article:
Should be mentioned in the article : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4Oby_omvZs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.168.148 ( talk) 11:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to incorporate the POTUS seal on this article and every former President; the seal is large and distracts from the office tab in the infobox. If this were to be incorporated, where would it stop, why not have the Senate seal with every Senator, House seal with every U.S. Rep, and Presidential seal with every President of every other nation. I feel the manual of style of simply having a number of order and office title is enough; I am interested in how others feel about this. Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 03:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Weren't there somethings about him in internet memes? The user above me was talking about it and also about the "mah boi" meme, shouldn't we add those too? 75.171.9.130 ( talk) 03:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
President Obama has overseen a massive expansion of the use of UAVs (primarily Predator Drones) in the "War on Terror." Drone strikes are frequent in the Pakistani border regions and are also used in Yemen, and to a lesser extent Somalia, against suspected militants. The drone war is a significant part of the administration's foreign/military policy and should be described in the foreign policy section of the article; in my opinion, they merit a brief mention in the opening summary, as this administration has been singular in expanding and promoting their use. If the assassination of bin Laden is worth mentioning in the summary, the assassinations of over 3000 people by drones certainly is.
As far as the foreign policy section goes, should there be a subsection on the drone war itself? It doesn't fit into the already existing subsections. The other option could be a section on the Global War on Terror, summarizing the administration's actions in that regard and including the drone war. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaputa12 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, Scjessey. First, it is NOT a given that the use of drones would have increased regardless of who was president. Another president could very well have decided on a different course of action for any number of reasons. It is no more a given than it is a given that any president would have authorized the operation that killed bin Laden. It is not a given that any president would have increased the use of drones by the some 700% that Obama has. I also disagree on the "defining" nature of the drones. They are getting a tremendous amount of coverage, they are defining things such as his nominations for cabinet and other executive branch posts. His use of drones, both in its massive increase and its use against US citizens without trial are getting a lot of trouble. This has become as defining a facet of his presidency as almost any other we have in this article, including the operation that took out bin Laden, his changed stance on gay marriage, the BP oil spill, gun control, etc. This coverage has not been only recent or ephemeral. We have recent things such as mention in the State of the Union, the revelation of bases in Saudi Arabia [4], UN inquiry [5], to stuff reaching farther back, such as analysis after killing US citizens [6], US university reports on their impacts on Pakistani civilians [7], references to the drone war as "Obama's drone doctrine" [8], large coverage in the NYT [9], and this is all just a smattering. One big thing they all have in common is that this drone war is defined as "Obama's," something he is doing, something about him. This is notable now. We do not have to predict anything. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 15:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, we've reached something of an impasse, and I'm not confident that further discussion of this sort is going to resolve matters. I'd suggest that a carefully written, impeccably sourced passage relating to President Obama's role in drone use be crafted. At that point, we'll have something concrete to consider, and if necessary we can do a RfC to determine where consensus lies. I'm overextended in RL at present or I'd begin the process myself. Rivertorch ( talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
... tumbleweed blows across stage from right to left... -- John ( talk) 17:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I changed title of this discussion to "Drone Policy" as opposed to the previous "Drone War" because there seem to be no wars of that name. While "Drone War" is occasionally used in the media it does not appear to be the most accurate, neutral, or academically accepted term for drone use under this Administration. The wars involved in this discussion are the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libyan Revolutionary wars. An agreement on the name of the issue under discussion might help should a draft section ever be formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.36.215 ( talk • contribs) 08:00, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
I recently came across http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/administration-faces-donors-paying-obama-access-204215484--politics.html and I think it should be added to this article: "Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House."
Whatever the details, the plain facts seem to be that half a million dollars buys a meeting with the president.
EllenCT ( talk) 05:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is missing a page on the Obama family. Many famous people have an article giving a family tree and family history. Here is a note I read yesterday: "President Barack Obama’s half-brother, Abong’o Malik Obama, won’t be the second member of his family to launch a political career. Mr. Obama was defeated in his bid to be governor of Kenya’s Siaya County this week by what seems to have been a very large margin.
Mr. Obama is the eldest child of President Obama’s father. They have different mothers. Mr. Obama served as the best man at the president’s wedding to Michelle Obama in 1992."
[10] — Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
President Obamas achievements in his second term should have its own section on the page. As one of the featured articles, we must make sure the page is as accurate and up to date as possible.
His Domestic Policy should include and expand on the re authorization of the Violence Against Womens act, Dodd Frank Wall Street reform and his various proposals for clean energy, immigration reform and gun control.
Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayoajb ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The article notes Obama as Barack Hussein Obama II. I would think it would be Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Can I have an opinion on this? Mfribbs ( talk) 23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No shady land deals? No drug use? No terrorist pals? No gaffs? Nothing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.27.147 ( talk) 06:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
A little surprised that we can read no word about it. Please open a new part in Foreign policy section with North Korea crisis title and add: "The United States has in turn made a show of its military strength in the annual drills, flying B-2 stealth bombers capable of carrying conventional or nuclear weapons. The U.S. military is sending a land-based missile defense system to Guam to defend against possible North Korean ballistic missile launches." ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/03/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/03/world/asia/guam-u-s-missiles/index.html?iref=allsearch 91.82.133.192 ( talk) 01:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
After the "community organizers" category was renamed to "community activists", I removed the category from this article. Obama was not an "activist" and there are no references that support the idea that he was. In my opinion, the renaming of the category significantly changed its meaning, so it is no longer pertinent. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why is Israel the only country that has its own subsection under Barack_Obama#Foreign_policy? Seems to raise somewhat glaring WP:DUE/ WP:BALANCE issues. Has this topic been previously discussed? NickCT ( talk) 07:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like when Wikipedia talks about something negative about a liberal, it's called gossip. when they talk about something negative about a conservative, it's called being neutral. Wikipedia should show the positive's and negative's about both. - Billybob2002 ( talk) 05:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is in the gun control issue, but that is still very few, when only today happened (at least) 2 shootings in both of them by a 4(!) years old boy and a college stabbing. reference:
And not forget about James Eagan Holmes, who left the most victims of any mass shooting in United States history. 91.83.180.23 ( talk) 23:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Gun control should certainly be in the article, and what do you know, it is! [11] Unfortunately, the section reads like an Obama press release, but I'm not sure how to fix it. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add middle initial to Sasha Obama's full name. It should read "Natasha M. Obama" This is based on the recent Obama tax return available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/complete_return_president_obama_2012.pdf Jamccull ( talk) 22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Should be included: "The blasts threw people to the ground, killing two and injuring dozens. Hospitals reported at least 110 people being treated, at least eight of them in critical condition and 14 in serious condition. At least eight of the patients are children. "Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups, will feel the full weight of justice," President Barack Obama vowed."
and probably my own trivial comment: This is the first terrorist attack in US territory since 911.
ref. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/15/us/boston-marathon-explosions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 I hope that Obama fans won't hide/color out this main news. 91.83.194.227 ( talk) 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that enough time spent to declare that this terrorist attack was significant, so it should be included in the main article. 91.83.184.187 ( talk) 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you give a reference that Wikipedia blocks the unregistered users to suggest edit(s) ? "instead of switching ips" you are totally wrong, I'm not switching manually the IP addresses, I have dynamic IP (like 99% of the users where I live), and only the internet provider's router decide when to request a new IP. BTW today is the 5th day that cnn is roughly continuously on breaking news, just proving that it is not a minor local event, Obama visited Boston. 91.82.0.138 ( talk) 18:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have read a few of the pages on current politicians here, and all of them include a section of questionable actions, criticism, and other information not on the positive side. I noticed more on the Republican pages than Independent or Democrat. Wikipedia has been very good at keeping things neutral, but this page is not neutral bias. From what I read I am under the impression that someone is actively editing this page on a near daily basis, removing items that cast any shadow of controversy on him.
I must call the neutrality of this article into question. There is no mention of his questioned birth status recently heard in the US Supreme Court, what SS numbers are assigned, names he has used in the past, nor his controversial terms in the Illinois legislature or at the federal level.
The validity of the controversy, whether factual or not should be included here for a non-biased and neutral article. As in the old saying "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" are needed for a neutral bias. This article reads like a puff news item, not up to the standards of Wikipedia. Milspecsim ( talk) 01:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, I was waiting for when this would get to the "I voted for him" line. If I had a nickel for every time in the seven years I've been editing this article that someone came on here to tell us how unbalanced, censored, whitewashed, pro-Obama this article is - and then rushed to assure us that they voted for him - I would retire. Tvoz/ talk 07:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Also note how he/she believes that the constitution says all tax increases/bills must originate from the house. Following that false logic, because the Republicans control the house and they are anti-tax, then such a "tax bill" like Obamacare could never be constitutional because the Republican controlled house would have never agreed to it. You got to love "false neutral" people who claim they are neutral, or even liberal, then turn around and spout Tea Party BS. 74.79.34.29 ( talk) 11:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section we are directed to mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies. Significance is established by the notability in RS. Several RS established notability of several separate issues, we now must select the most notable one or more and include it. My specific suggestion would be the Disposition Matrix and the collateral damage resulting from the use of drones. Darkstar1st ( talk) 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
tangential discussion of appropriateness of phrase Shuckin' and jivin' |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:Phoenix and Winslow is desperate to see Obama cop a similar amount of criticism to Dubya. I'm not American. On the international stage, Dubya lied about WMDs, taking much of the western world, including my country, into a pointless war. His overall performance damaged America's image massively on the world stage. He is generally seen as a dishonest fool in most of the world. Obama has done nothing in that league. Maybe he will. He's got over three years to go. But so far, no. Demanding that Obama's article contain the same amount of criticism as one of America's worst ever Presidents is just stupid. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
i suggest we add the Kill List controversy which resulted in the death of two US citizens by drone. NYT [17] and this source NBC [18] which uses the term controversy in the story title. please respond with support or oppose then explain, comments will be moved to a different section. Darkstar1st ( talk) 10:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
5 or so editors have made their objections known, all have now been addressed and satisfied correct? one editor has suggested it is undue, however that cannot be the case as the article would be undue without the edit, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. being featured in a 12 page article in the nyt and mentioned in several other widely read rs over years would certainly qualify as significant, and there is certainly a lack of criticism in the article, therefore all sides are not currently represented. Darkstar1st ( talk) 09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help); Text "
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/18/obama-transparency-takes-turn-under-microscope-after-attacks-on-romney/" ignored (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | ← | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | → | Archive 80 |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OK, How is this: Under the "Economics" section, please remove the word "unprecedented" from the following sentence: "By passing the legislation, Congress was able to prevent an unprecedented U.S. government default on its obligations." 1 2 3 4 Does this work? Meshiah ( talk) 13:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. There's a discussion of the redirects Maobama and Chairman Maobama at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#Maobama, if anyone is interested. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 15:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I think discussions on this page should be purged less often. 140.177.205.223 ( talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is "Hussein" missing from The President's name in this article's title?
The articles on John Wilks Booth is not titled "John Booth", and the article on Lee Harvey Oswald is not titled "John Oswald".
Please explain...? 75.202.62.37 ( talk) 11:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Got away from the subject raised and devolved into a pissing match. If there are concerns about editor behavior or content disputes, dispute resolution or WP:ANI is thataway. Tarc ( talk) 20:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@75.202.62.37: The answer is this: Wikipedia articles are titled after the most common name in English. Most people know him as "Barack Obama". People rarely use his middle name. In the case of John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, people rarely exclude their middle name. So, basically, it's whatever the most common name is in English. For more information about how Wikipedia titles their articles, please see WP:COMMONNAME. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
A user has reverted the following, which I added to first days:
An analysis by Bloomberg News indicates that his administration has failed to follow the requirements of the Act. [1] White House spokesman Jay Carney defended the President's record, stating that the Administration has shown "unprecedented transparency." [2]
Now I can agree that it doesn't really fit into first days. The problem here is that by including Obama's initial transparency order, without including the follow-on, the article gives a misleading impression. How can we handle that? William Jockusch ( talk) 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Perennial request, answered adequately both here and in the FAQ above. Move along, please. Tarc ( talk) 18:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Mr. Obama is not the first Black President. He is the first Mulatto/Mixed/BiRacial President, perhaps even more significant. To designate him otherwise is to ignore and obscure the significant contributions of his mother and his mother's family. Mr. Obama's father is remembered by the President for the single month they spent together in December 1971, when the President was 10 years old. [3] 71.196.239.231 ( talk) 04:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Obama is mixed race but self identifies as Black or African American. Put his picture up and cover up his eyes so you can't tell it is the President and most people will also say that the photo is that of a Black man. Wawaxi ( talk) 01:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Before every election, Obama has coverage, as does other politicians' articles. Except there is no coverage about Obama's state senate. I will fix that. There is a little negative to it but only because it is fact. There should not be a whitewash of negative fact as Wikipedia is not a pro-Obama campaign office, but overly negative for the sake of attacking the man is also not right either.
Basically, CNN, the Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal and New Yorker agree that Obama got all challengers kicked off the ballot so he would be unopposed. I did not look up Fox News because they suck. Disclaimer: I am neutral, not an American, and editing from a foreign oountry. Wawaxi ( talk) 00:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
State Senate campaign
Obama ran against several challengers for the Democratic primary, including incumbent Alice Palmer. However, he successfully challenged all of his opponents and had them removed from the ballot by questioning the validity of petitions to have them on the ballot. As a result, he was able to run unopposed. Some news organizstions refered to this strategy as "Chicago politics".[49][50][51]
Undue weight? Seems like complete omission of the election. I can see why some may not want any mention because it is negative info. Maybe it can be written in the best possible light but no mention sounds fishy. Axelrod, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer 1991 ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
As for the wikipedia article, there is an election section in all of his races except this one. it is clear that phony excuses are being made. It is possible to write a less negative bent but partisans will have not of that.....please cooperate for sake of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer 1991 ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
CORRECTION Jennifer1991: Obama is tied in most swing states and this election is very close. Wikipedia is not some campaigning tool, so take that elsewhere please. 70.178.153.27 ( talk) 00:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
See: http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/02/news/economy/october-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 "Unemployment inched up to 7.9% in September 2012." It should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.186.96.98 ( talk) 15:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the feedback being utilized to improve the article? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Barack_Obama&ref=cta#582432
I believe it is in die need for Featured Article Review which the consensus is to begin on November 6, 2012 – Election Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 ( talk) 03:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I found the problem==the bot prematurely closed the FAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 ( talk) 03:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article is lacking info about possible federal felony. This is not a part of the Romney campaign(I won't give my vote to anyone racing today), but every article in Wikipedia, about USA citizen(and especially because of USA privacy law), who maybe probably broke law have this type of info. Why public person, especially politic shouldn't have this?
As written above Maraniss, who won a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 1993, claims that Obama used mariljuana in high school(
source). Mr Obama never said that this is false(e.g. but not only'On Bill Clinton's personal triangulation that he had tried marijuana but "didn't inhale," Obama said smiling in 2006, "That was the point, wasn't it?"'), and probably this may be a felony, which of course he currently have law protection because of current seat. Especially there is no difference between nowadays and decades ago, because this law is more than 75 years old(
source).
You can say of course that this is somewhere in the article, but possible violation of federal law should be, like in other biography articles written under other paragraph, also with addition that no criminal charges was sued by federal officers because of the "over-the law shield of the highest politics seat". E.g. protected are candidates and winning people, and thing emerged on the surface during successful campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.13.170 ( talk) 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Instead of just saying Obama is a 'Christian', something that I think every US president, Vice President would say they were, I have included his 'brand' of Christianity, making it consistent with every other article about a US president. Rodchen ( talk) 00:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, seeing no objection, that is what I will do. Rodchen ( talk) 04:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't figure out how to do it without making it 'red' in color. When I figure it out, I will make the change. Saying 'United Church of Christ, later Unaffiliate Christian' seems the most accurate. Other comments? Rodchen ( talk) 04:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The last we know, he was United Church of Christ and reliable sources should list this. However, if we want to do OR (original research), we can put "United Church of Christ (2008 citation)". Actually, CNN did an article yesterday about Obama possibly moving closer to Christianity. The CNN article speculated that this could be because he's had more contact with mainstream pastors in recent years. Rev. Wright was a special and politically connected Chicago pastor and had slightly different theology. Auchansa ( talk) 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Gallup, 5 days ago 51% Romney 46% Obama
Should there be a section to provide this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.49.40 ( talk) 03:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Gallup does have Romney leading Obama by that amount, but I agree with the people above that this is not an election article. Whatever the outcome of the election may be it will all be printed on the article for the 2012 US presidential election and on the articles for both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, regardless of whoever ends up winning. Polls leading up to the election will also be printed after the election is over. 70.178.153.27 ( talk) 07:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree
Eu sou portugues 454 (
talk) 22:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Any particular reason why Romney's name is mentioned but once in the article, as part of a source name? I would change the article, but was wondering if campaign matter had been moved to respective pages. dci | TALK 03:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Did people experience frequent 5xx errors (e.g.
HTTP 504) on this article today?
Nemo 07:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't Obama's real fathers & mothers name and backgrounds mentioned with this information? What is there to hide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.84.113 ( talk) 03:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
It say's Obama is the first African-American president but isn't that a bit incorrect or lacking.
He is the first bi-racial president? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
184.145.120.132 (
talk) 02:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Obama won the election. An administrator should update this.
Already done --
Webclient101
talk 04:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Magma armor0 ( talk) 05:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
He just did — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.137.215 ( talk) 06:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Obama has not won a second Presidential term. He has won more than the 270 delegates to electoral college, necessary to be elected to a second term. Saying he has won a second term is factually false, and misrepresents the US electoral system. When the electoral college meets and votes, then presumably Obama will be elected to a second term, but not before
RevDan (
talk) 03:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From the current article: "on November 6, 2012, he defeated Republican nominee Mitt Romney to win a second term" and "On November 6, 2012, Obama was elected to a second term as president."
From President of the United States: "the president is indirectly elected by the people through the Electoral College to a four-year term". So what has Obama won? Only electors in the Electoral College (United States), from the same article "no elector is required by federal law to honor a pledge". This is not only a book example that couldn't happen in real life as there were many Faithless electors in the past. To sum up I suggest to remove the above two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.161.125 ( talk) 11:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that Obama's election will not be recognized. -- Doyouevenlift84 ( talk) 13:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
RevDan ( talk) 22:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
To be super-precise, he won the vote (apparently) but the results have not been ratified by the electoral college (something that is not an election). Right? - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
SMP and Dezastru have it right. We had the same conversation four years ago about whether to call him "President-elect" or "presumptive President-elect" or "President-designate" between the election and the Electoral College meeting, and our conclusion, as I recall, was to go with standard, logical Wikipedia practice and policy, which is to say: follow the sources, not anyone's original research about the mechanics of the Electoral College process. As it was then, the case now is that all reliable sources say he has been re-elected, the technicality of getting through the Electoral College notwithstanding. This is s silly dispute, and not helpful to the improvement and maintenance of this article. The purpose of this article is to give our readers a biography of the man and his career, not to teach them about the vagaries and terminology of a fairly obscure process, about which they can read at the appropriate article. All sources say he was re-elected - he is already President, so "President-elect" would be confusing and unnecessary. He will be President until January 20 at which time he will be sworn in again as President in a seamless manner. There is no point in this. Tvoz/ talk 07:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add specific date of November 6, 2012 instead of just November, 2012 for The President's re-election. Please change the above mentioned content Ritviksharda ( talk) 22:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/this_is_no_way_to_get_us_up_running_egrMk4ukpzFCGhSF8oM5kN/0 It should be covered how Obama as a president handle the causes of this major hurricane, what is currently the second costliest hurricane in US history. It looks like not very satisfactory, add to the article "In addition to the generators, a food services truck dropped off hundreds of cases of water, sparking angered responses from hurricane victims." One victim from Coney Island said that: "People have no food, no water, nothing.". Not speaking about the 113 deaths in USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.190.81 ( talk) 09:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Wait, so a food services truck "dropped off hundreds of cases of water" - and this angered the victims, who claim to have no water or food? Huh? Psychonavigation ( talk) 02:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Date is wrong on photo. Unable to fix myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.193.201 ( talk) 11:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Done Thanks! --
MST☆
R
(Chat Me!) 11:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I
revised two inaccurate Trinity United Church of Christ sentences in the "Religious views" subsection:
from:
Obama was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, and was an active member there for two decades.[323]
He resigned from Trinity during the presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.[324]
323. Kantor, Jodi (April 30, 2007). "Barack Obama's search for faith". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30 2007.
324. "Obama's church choice likely to be scutinized". Associated Press. msnbc.com. November 17, 2008. Retrieved January 20, 2009.
to:
Obama met Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright in October 1987, and became a member of Trinity in 1992.[323]
He resigned from Trinity in May 2008 during his first presidential campaign after controversial statements by Wright were publicized.[324]
323. Garrett, Major; Obama, Barack (March 14, 2008). "Obama talks to Major Garrett on 'Hannity & Colmes'". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved November 10, 2012. "Major Garrett, Fox News correspondent: So the first question, how long have you been a member in good standing of that church? Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), presidential candidate: You know, I've been a member since 1991 or '92. And -- but I have known Trinity even before then when I was a community organizer on the South Side, helping steel workers find jobs…Garrett: As a member in good standing, were you a regular attendee of Sunday services? Obama: You know, I won't say that I was a perfect attendee. I was regular in spurts, because there was times when, for example, our child had just been born, our first child. And so we didn't go as regularly then."
- Associated Press (April 29, 2008). "Obama denounces former pastor". MSNBC.com. Retrieved November 10, 2012. "I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992, and have known Reverend Wright for 20 years," Obama said. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."
- Miller, Lisa (July 11, 2008). "Finding his faith". Newsweek. Retrieved November 10, 2012. "He is now a Christian, having been baptized in the early 1990s at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago."
- Remnick, David (2010). The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 177. IBSN 978-1-4000-4360-6. "In late October 1987, his third year as an organizer, Obama went with Kellman to a conference on the black church and social justice at the Harvard Divinity School."
- Maraniss (2012), p. 557: It would take time for Obama to join and become fully engaged in Wright's church, a place where he would be baptized and married; that would not happen until later, during his second time around in Chicago, but the process started then, in October 1987...Jerry Kellman: "He wasn't a member of the church during those first three years, but he was drawn to it, he was drawn to Jeremiah."
324. Associated Press (November 17, 2008). "Obama's church choice likely to be scrutinized". MSNBC.com Retrieved January 20, 2009.
Newross ( talk) 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing here about the US Ambassador being murdered and the President's response about it being because of a youtube video. Shouldn't something be added? 96.240.179.53 ( talk) 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
And this isn't the Obama campaign site either. I don't think there is anything wrong with simply mentiong the Benghazi affair as long as it is done in a neutral way without placing any direct blame. The affair is a controversial issue that does have stronger evidence of negligence on the part of the Obama Administrationin it. Secretary of State Clinton has also taken the fall for it, and the parents of two of the four killed are blaming Obama for their son's murders. Just mention those facts without making it sound like campaigning. 70.178.153.27 ( talk) 01:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you are trying to be political here. FOUR PEOPLE DIED UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!! FOUR PEOPLE DIED, INCLUDING AN AMBASSADOR OBAMA WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING!! That is much different than Obama making stupid comments or refusing to wear a lapel pin. 70.178.153.27 ( talk) 08:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a very good issue to bring up since there is a lot of controversy surrounding this one issue. There were emails leaked that showed the white house had received calls for help prior to the killings and Clinton even owned up to them. This was reported on every news agency for a time. This was definitely a different issue for this administration vs. previous administrations. This incident can be cited by any news agency and can be written in a neutral manner without making outright accusations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57538689/emails-detail-unfolding-benghazi-attack-on-sept-11/
70.178.153.27 ( talk) 08:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
A mention of the incident is fine with me but the details of the event are still under investigation so adding details here when they're still changing on the wiki page of the actual event would be pointless. These sorts of things are normally left for several months so the information is clear and accurate Pongley ( talk) 14:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I know the election's over now, but if this was perceived as such a significant issue related to Obama's continued tenure as president, wouldn't it be more suitable for the 2012 US election article (note that it may already be there, I haven't actually checked)? Just my "two cents", as they say. Incidentally, I'm glad it's Obama again. Peace :). Psychonavigation ( talk) 02:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Obama does not presonally manage embassy security as has been said by the US government, attributing every single event to Obama makes no sense. I am glad that Obama won, Romney would do something stupid, his foreign policy is awful, if he managed to upset us Brits so much I wouldn't want to see him trying to negotiate with Iran or China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsdh1 ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's keep this objective... I'd argue in summation that there are two excellent arguments against inclusion made in here- 1) Thekithless argued that this has happened under every president's tenure... yet we don't see POLITICALLY CHARGED comments on any other president's page saying how each prez is a blockhead and 2) Fdsdh1 pointed out well that Obama doesn't handle embassy security... just because something happened under Obama doesn't mean that it's his fault... not to mention that Patraeus is taking tons of fire for his actions on the attack. Prove these two points beyond a doubt and you can have your tiny precious section on Benghazi... 71.64.111.100 ( talk) 03:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_place_of_birth#cite_note-10
Hey, well you're the one who started complaining. Also, you talking about user conduct; look who is displaying vulgar conduct now, using profanity and the likes while being rudely accusatory.--ɱ
First warning to Scjessey for personal attacks and incivility. If you post similar posts here, on edit summaries, and on other talk pages, and continue to revert without proper reasons in the edit summaries, I will be reporting you to ANI for disruptive editing and personal attacks/incivility. Regarding the inclusion request, that is trivial and not notable. - M0rphzone ( talk) 20:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest to include: "The first reelcted black president." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.226.247.18 ( talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The figure showing the change in unemployment (as well as the net change creation by month) is misleading because the right axis is label improperly. The right axis only shows a small range of unemployment values and thus makes it look as if unemployment has returned to "normal". The specific change I would request is to remove this figure and replace it with one that show either the full range of unemployment starting at zero or the starting at the historical minimum for unemployment. 78.40.152.129 ( talk) 13:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I
corrected an inaccurate first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede section by
Joker123192 (
talk |
contribs):
from:
Obama first received national attention for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, and his subsequent election to the United States Senate in November 2004.
to:
Obama received national attention during his 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate election campaign with his March primary victory, which intensified with his July keynote address at the Democratic National Convention and November election to the United States Senate.
which is an accurate summary of the text in the "U.S. Senate campaign" section of this Wikipedia article:
In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide—which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party, started speculation about a presidential future, and led to the reissue of his memoir, Dreams from My Father.[66] In July 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention,[67]
seen by 9.1 million viewers. His speech was well received and elevated his status within the Democratic Party.[68]
66. Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state". Chicago Tribune. p. 1.
- Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born". The New York Times. p. A20.
- Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate". USA Today. p. A04. '
- Scheiber, Noam (May 31, 2004). "Race against history. Barack Obama's miraculous campaign". The New Republic. pp. 21–22, 24–26 (cover story).
- Finnegan, William (May 31, 2004). " The Candidate. How far can Barack Obama go?". The New Yorker. pp. 32–38.
- Dionne Jr., E.J. (June 25, 2004). "In Illinois, a star prepares". The Washington Post. p. A29.
- Scott, Janny (May 18, 2008). "The story of Obama, written by Obama". The New York Times. p. A1.
- Mendell (2007), pp. 235–259.
67. Bernstein, David (June 2007). "The Speech". Chicago Magazine. pp. 80-83, 121-129.
68. . (August 2, 2004). "Star Power. Showtime: Some are on the rise; others have long been fixtures in the firmament. A galaxy of bright Democratic lights". Newsweek. pp. 48–51.
- Samuel, Terence (August 2, 2004). "A shining star named Obama. How a most unlikely politician became a darling of the Democrats". U.S. News & World Report. p. 25.
- Lizza, Ryan (September 2004). "Why is Barack Obama generating more excitement among Democrats than John Kerry?". The Atlantic Monthly. pp. 30, 33.
- Davey, Monica (July 26, 2004). "A surprise Senate contender reaches his biggest stage yet". The New York Times. p. A1.
- Leibovich, Mark (July 27, 2004). "The other man of the hour". The Washington Post. p. C1.
- Milligan, Susan (July 27, 2004). "In Obama, Democrats see their future". The Boston Globe. p. B8.
- Seelye, Katharine Q. (July 28, 2004). "Illinois Senate nominee speaks of encompassing unity". The New York Times. p. A1.
- Broder, David S. (July 28, 2004). "Democrats focus on healing divisions; Addressing convention, newcomers set themes". The Washington Post. p. A1.
- Bing, Jonathan; McClintock, Pamela (July 29, 2004). "Auds resist charms of Dem stars". Variety. p. 1.
- Mendell (2007), pp. 272–285.
This is the fourth time Joker123192 ( talk | contribs) has made the same inaccurate and contentious change to the lede section ( 10 September 2012, 13 September 2012, 19 September 2012, 12 November 2012) without consensus or talk page discussion to content which had been stable for three years (see Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 75#Major changes to lede). Newross ( talk) 15:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Tvoz's revision is fine with me since it does not change the content and is an accurate summary of the "U.S. Senate campaign" section. Newross ( talk) 18:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If somebody has an official estimate, then probably it would be worth to include in the article. Not impossible to get this info, just read the numbers for Bush: http://www.wgbh.org/News/Articles/2012/11/17/Do_We_Really_Need_A_Second_Inauguration.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.94.25 ( talk) 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
An editor has removed "intensified" a few times regarding the 2004 keynote as well as the phrase about the victory over Romney being a closer margin - I previously asked that this be discussed first, as per the section above, rather than removing it with edit summaries like "more concise". Yes it is more concise, but it also is removing content. So, can we please get some consensus on this. Thanks. Tvoz/ talk 22:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
— Sowlos ( talk) 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, which intensified with his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July and his election to the Senate in November.
orIn 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, which intensified with his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July and his election to the Senate in November.
both accurately summarize the content of the "U.S. Senate campaign" section. Newross ( talk) 22:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July and his election to the Senate in November.
The sentence "He is the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win two successive presidential elections with a majority of the popular vote." is factually wrong. Please change "majority" to "absolute majority". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabana85 ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with William Jokusch. Why keep a factually wrong sentence when its content wouldn't even be that relevent at all?
Without that context, this factoid is misleading as to the historical record, as well as being such an obscure bit of trivia that it would appear on almost no-one's list of Top Five Obama Firsts. rewinn ( talk) 16:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the article clearly states Obama is of English (mother) desent and African (father) therefore he is not African -American. The title should be ommitted or added as "and/or English American. Perhaps if the country understood this, they wouldnt be so quick to point out the skin colour differenct.
Adamkingdon1975 ( talk) 13:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The enquirer should look at the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of the page. Click on [Show].) Q2 applies. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
There have been several categories that seem to have been applied to the Barack Obama article in contravention of the categorization guidelines. Two specific examples are "African-American Christians" and "Presidents of the United Nations Security Council."
According to the Categorization guideline, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people)." The guideline gives as an example: " 'Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...', Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio." The Overcategorization guideline says that "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided," and further states that "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining."
Obama is unquestionably African-American and Christian. But is his being an African-American Christian one of his defining characteristics?
Same question with his having been the President of the UN Security Council. Is this a defining characteristic? United Nations Secretaries-General would be a category reflecting a truly defining characteristic — for an article on Kofi Annan or Ban Ki-moon. But that's very different than the case with the Security Council president, which, for those years that the US holds the presidency, is usually occupied by the US ambassador to the UN, not by the US president. The US president takes that role only, as a technicality, when present at Security Council meetings. Dezastru ( talk) 00:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If these facts are verifiable, then why not include them? ChromaNebula (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
See below the list of categories:
How the same subject can be at the same time top and mid importance, or even low and top importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.226.246.190 ( talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It would be more accurate to say "first half African American to hold the office" rather than "first African American..." African American implies he is full; however, he is not. 166.137.191.26 ( talk) 18:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done
Tvoz/
talk 19:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Does this president have an official portait/oil painting of him, courtesy of the White House? Could it not also be included? Journalbug ( talk) 07:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Presidents do not get their official painting until after they leave office, usually in some sort of ceremony. Bush received his this year. The photo of Obama that is on this article right now is his official picture. There's a portrait and a photograph.-- Xxhopingtearsxx ( talk) 06:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Please add: "Under Obama administration the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history was the mass murdering at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Furthermore the Aurora shooting with 12 deaths and 59 injuries made the most victims of any mass shooting in United States history in the same year.
(ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/state-police-respond-to-report-of-school-shooting-in-newtown-conn-lockdown-in-place/2012/12/14/df59a9aa-4602-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html and http://www.kptv.com/story/19071381/james-eagan-holmes-court-appearance-dark-knight-rises-shooting )
And possibly write about the liberal gun control policy. In the recent year(s) there are too much rampage killings and with unexpectedly more deads/victims so that not writing about this in wikipedia would raise many red flags for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.177.25 ( talk) 00:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have been criticized too many times for WP:SYNTH to know that sandy hook / obama's gun control policy is wp:synth & should not be added here. Angelatomato ( talk) 00:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Most articles have a section above sources. I looked and couldn't find any, which made me think there were none. Prevent this by making it predictable about where to find these links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Please add: " Joseph Stalin also named twice (in 1939 and 1942) as a Person of the Year, moreover Adolf Hitler was the Person of Year in 1938."
Just to illustrate that it is not a prize or award like Nobel Peace Prize. And people often regard this as an honor from Time magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.186.114.111 ( talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The Aptostichus barackobamai Bond, 2012: The new spider species of the genus Aptostichus from California in ( http://species-id.net/wiki/Aptostichus_barackobamai : The specific epithet is a patronym in honor of Barack Obama, first African American President of the United State and reputed fan of spiders). Thanks -- Kmoksy ( talk) 11:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This sentence is not necessary in the leading paragraph. Remove it. Cheisu7 ( talk) 16:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a continuing effort to put trivia about the Democratic Party into the lede, something about Obama being the first Democrat since FDR to win two terms with a popular vote majority both times. An attempt at balance was struck by citing also to Reagan, making the trivia at least bipartisan, but that was also deleted. I reverted the lede to include both (although better would be to include neither.) For the record, there has been only ONE case in which a member of the Democratic Party between FDR and Obama was re-elected, and in that ONE case the election was by popular vote plurality; between Reagan and Obama there is NO CASE in which a candidate of ANY party was elected twice with a majority of the popular vote ... which is surely a much more significant factoid. If the lede is to be cluttered with trivia, let it be non-partisan trivia. rewinn ( talk) 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I ran across the article Obama effect, which seems to me to be a bit unnecessary as a standalone article, but something which should definitely not be ignored. What do you all think about moving it over as a sentence or two in this article? Prodego talk 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/30/politics/obama-meet-the-press/index.html
Add something from these sentences: "Obama said he hopes that the Newtown killings spur Americans to take action and not let the shootings feel like "one of those routine episodes," the emotions of which fade with memory. ""It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that, you know, that was the worst day of my presidency," he said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.189.208 ( talk) 18:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that Obama being the first African american to hold this position be changed to the correct term Mulata,or Bi racial president to hold this position. The reason and the proof are evident Thank you
Chris Bordenkircher 71.3.89.237 ( talk) 00:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last sentence of the second paragraph regarding the early life of Barack Obama. "From ages six to ten, Obama attended local Indonesian-language schools: St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School for two years and Besuki Public School FROM one and half years, ...". There is a misuse of preposition. the FROM should be replaced by for. Chongminwang ( talk) 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Dodd-Frank in domestic or economic policy? One of Obama's key pieces of signed legislation.
"The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) was signed into federal law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshboyette ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/14/world/africa/mali-france-us/index.html Please add: "U.S. could provide logistical, intel support in Mali"
It could be Obama's next bloody war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.33.176 ( talk) 00:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia articles for most modern politicians contain approval/disapproval graphs ( Hillary Rodham Clinton, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton are just a few examples of this), yet I see no such images regarding the current president's approval/disapproval ratings. I suggest that one be added to this article to help readers to visualize President Obama's public opinion over the course of his presidency.-- Philpill691 ( talk) 16:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
According to a birth document, right? -- 41.151.178.228 ( talk) 11:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you a birther? How about you? Do you have a birth document? One that proves you were born from human parents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.148.18 ( talk) 16:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Read the FAQ, please |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
He introduced as Barack H. Obama, like on the first inauguration. I would suspect that this is his official name, so please change the article's title! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.108.35 ( talk) 23:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This is such a non-discussion, of which for starts I'm wondering whether it would even take place were his middle name not "Hussein" and which has been discussed ad nauseam in the past. There is a difference between an occasion as taking the presidential oath, when one's full name is used, and the every day name with which that person is associated. I don't see anybody wanting to rename the article about "Bill Clinton" as "William J. Clinton" or "William Jefferson Clinton", whereas that's his full name. The full name is mentioned in the article but is not the main artcile title. The same standard applies to President Obama. -- fdewaele, 22 January 2013.
|
Please think long and hard before adding new categories to the article. The latest addition (which I reverted) was "gun control advocates". Besides the standard BLP-related categories, I think this article should only go into categories for which Barack Obama is notable. For example, he is not notable for being an American of Irish descent and he is not notable for being an African-American Christian. I reverted recent additions to both of these as well. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Why does the bold name at the beginning of the article not have "President" in front of "Barack Hussein Obama II?" Titles, such as "Prince" or "Queen," are often found before the subject's name and included in the bold lettering. However, Queen Elizabeth II's page does not have any title before her bold name. I've also wondered what the reason for that was. Thanks. DrAndrewWinters ( talk) 23:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ye Olde Drivel Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why doesn't this wiki have a disclaimer asking for further verification of information? There is no disclaimer about his actual birth certificate being questionable, as the State of Hawaii has not released the actual document, and it's existance is still in question, as the 3 citations are (1). A scanned questionable document dated 2011 that is full of ghost images, mismatched fonts, and obvious corrections to letters and numbers. (2). 2 news articles dated 2008 and 2011 respectivly. Why is there no disclaimer about the marriage between his mother and supposed father, Barack Obama Sr.? Why no cite of the certificate of marriage from the state of Hawaii? It's public record. The citations are 2 seperate citations, between 4 people, one of which is a book without any kind of proper vetting or documentation, and the other cite doesn't even cite a work, just random page numbers attributed to 3 different people. Why is there no disclaimer about his adoption by his mother's second husband, and the name change to Barry Soetoro, to register him in a school in Indonesia? Why is there no disclaimer of his college years at Occidental College, and his association with known Muslim agitators, and the apparent use of non-resident funds to pay for school? Why is there no disclaimer about his lack of editorial work while at Harvard, and every cite noted is from various news articles, but not a single refrence from Harvard. This page has too many questions to be called authoritative. AnAmerican1776 ( talk) 18:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC) |
Damn. I wish there was somewhere we could put this picture of Obama skeet shooting. How about the section on the death of bin Laden? LOL. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
This isn't even funny. — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you think about adding the picture of Barack holding a gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.239 ( talk) 01:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
That would be important information if Obama is an avid gun owner. Besides, the basketball photo, I don't see much about his hobbies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.189.239 ( talk) 03:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
If that isn't enough, just google "Obama gun control", check out the new articles, and then try and tell me with a straight face he isnt a gun control advocate... IronKnuckle ( talk) 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This is covered under WP:COP#N. We must try to limit the number of categories before it gets out of hand again. Pretty soon it will be Category: People who have met George Clooney or some other bollocks. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. He isn't known for being a supporter of gun control (it's quite recent), and to date, he hasn't done anything other than say he supports it. — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 22:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
See: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/obama-calls-on-boy-scouts-to-welcome-homosexuals.html .Please add for example: "President Obama called on the Boy Scouts to open their ranks to homosexuals."
And consider to open a new section about Obama's view on gays. So far we have lots of context about this but these are spread in the article:
Should be mentioned in the article : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4Oby_omvZs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.168.148 ( talk) 11:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to incorporate the POTUS seal on this article and every former President; the seal is large and distracts from the office tab in the infobox. If this were to be incorporated, where would it stop, why not have the Senate seal with every Senator, House seal with every U.S. Rep, and Presidential seal with every President of every other nation. I feel the manual of style of simply having a number of order and office title is enough; I am interested in how others feel about this. Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 03:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Weren't there somethings about him in internet memes? The user above me was talking about it and also about the "mah boi" meme, shouldn't we add those too? 75.171.9.130 ( talk) 03:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
President Obama has overseen a massive expansion of the use of UAVs (primarily Predator Drones) in the "War on Terror." Drone strikes are frequent in the Pakistani border regions and are also used in Yemen, and to a lesser extent Somalia, against suspected militants. The drone war is a significant part of the administration's foreign/military policy and should be described in the foreign policy section of the article; in my opinion, they merit a brief mention in the opening summary, as this administration has been singular in expanding and promoting their use. If the assassination of bin Laden is worth mentioning in the summary, the assassinations of over 3000 people by drones certainly is.
As far as the foreign policy section goes, should there be a subsection on the drone war itself? It doesn't fit into the already existing subsections. The other option could be a section on the Global War on Terror, summarizing the administration's actions in that regard and including the drone war. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaputa12 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, Scjessey. First, it is NOT a given that the use of drones would have increased regardless of who was president. Another president could very well have decided on a different course of action for any number of reasons. It is no more a given than it is a given that any president would have authorized the operation that killed bin Laden. It is not a given that any president would have increased the use of drones by the some 700% that Obama has. I also disagree on the "defining" nature of the drones. They are getting a tremendous amount of coverage, they are defining things such as his nominations for cabinet and other executive branch posts. His use of drones, both in its massive increase and its use against US citizens without trial are getting a lot of trouble. This has become as defining a facet of his presidency as almost any other we have in this article, including the operation that took out bin Laden, his changed stance on gay marriage, the BP oil spill, gun control, etc. This coverage has not been only recent or ephemeral. We have recent things such as mention in the State of the Union, the revelation of bases in Saudi Arabia [4], UN inquiry [5], to stuff reaching farther back, such as analysis after killing US citizens [6], US university reports on their impacts on Pakistani civilians [7], references to the drone war as "Obama's drone doctrine" [8], large coverage in the NYT [9], and this is all just a smattering. One big thing they all have in common is that this drone war is defined as "Obama's," something he is doing, something about him. This is notable now. We do not have to predict anything. -- OuroborosCobra ( talk) 15:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, we've reached something of an impasse, and I'm not confident that further discussion of this sort is going to resolve matters. I'd suggest that a carefully written, impeccably sourced passage relating to President Obama's role in drone use be crafted. At that point, we'll have something concrete to consider, and if necessary we can do a RfC to determine where consensus lies. I'm overextended in RL at present or I'd begin the process myself. Rivertorch ( talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
... tumbleweed blows across stage from right to left... -- John ( talk) 17:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I changed title of this discussion to "Drone Policy" as opposed to the previous "Drone War" because there seem to be no wars of that name. While "Drone War" is occasionally used in the media it does not appear to be the most accurate, neutral, or academically accepted term for drone use under this Administration. The wars involved in this discussion are the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libyan Revolutionary wars. An agreement on the name of the issue under discussion might help should a draft section ever be formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.36.215 ( talk • contribs) 08:00, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
I recently came across http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/administration-faces-donors-paying-obama-access-204215484--politics.html and I think it should be added to this article: "Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House."
Whatever the details, the plain facts seem to be that half a million dollars buys a meeting with the president.
EllenCT ( talk) 05:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is missing a page on the Obama family. Many famous people have an article giving a family tree and family history. Here is a note I read yesterday: "President Barack Obama’s half-brother, Abong’o Malik Obama, won’t be the second member of his family to launch a political career. Mr. Obama was defeated in his bid to be governor of Kenya’s Siaya County this week by what seems to have been a very large margin.
Mr. Obama is the eldest child of President Obama’s father. They have different mothers. Mr. Obama served as the best man at the president’s wedding to Michelle Obama in 1992."
[10] — Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
President Obamas achievements in his second term should have its own section on the page. As one of the featured articles, we must make sure the page is as accurate and up to date as possible.
His Domestic Policy should include and expand on the re authorization of the Violence Against Womens act, Dodd Frank Wall Street reform and his various proposals for clean energy, immigration reform and gun control.
Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayoajb ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The article notes Obama as Barack Hussein Obama II. I would think it would be Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Can I have an opinion on this? Mfribbs ( talk) 23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No shady land deals? No drug use? No terrorist pals? No gaffs? Nothing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.27.147 ( talk) 06:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
A little surprised that we can read no word about it. Please open a new part in Foreign policy section with North Korea crisis title and add: "The United States has in turn made a show of its military strength in the annual drills, flying B-2 stealth bombers capable of carrying conventional or nuclear weapons. The U.S. military is sending a land-based missile defense system to Guam to defend against possible North Korean ballistic missile launches." ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/03/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/03/world/asia/guam-u-s-missiles/index.html?iref=allsearch 91.82.133.192 ( talk) 01:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
After the "community organizers" category was renamed to "community activists", I removed the category from this article. Obama was not an "activist" and there are no references that support the idea that he was. In my opinion, the renaming of the category significantly changed its meaning, so it is no longer pertinent. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why is Israel the only country that has its own subsection under Barack_Obama#Foreign_policy? Seems to raise somewhat glaring WP:DUE/ WP:BALANCE issues. Has this topic been previously discussed? NickCT ( talk) 07:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like when Wikipedia talks about something negative about a liberal, it's called gossip. when they talk about something negative about a conservative, it's called being neutral. Wikipedia should show the positive's and negative's about both. - Billybob2002 ( talk) 05:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I see that Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is in the gun control issue, but that is still very few, when only today happened (at least) 2 shootings in both of them by a 4(!) years old boy and a college stabbing. reference:
And not forget about James Eagan Holmes, who left the most victims of any mass shooting in United States history. 91.83.180.23 ( talk) 23:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Gun control should certainly be in the article, and what do you know, it is! [11] Unfortunately, the section reads like an Obama press release, but I'm not sure how to fix it. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add middle initial to Sasha Obama's full name. It should read "Natasha M. Obama" This is based on the recent Obama tax return available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/complete_return_president_obama_2012.pdf Jamccull ( talk) 22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Should be included: "The blasts threw people to the ground, killing two and injuring dozens. Hospitals reported at least 110 people being treated, at least eight of them in critical condition and 14 in serious condition. At least eight of the patients are children. "Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups, will feel the full weight of justice," President Barack Obama vowed."
and probably my own trivial comment: This is the first terrorist attack in US territory since 911.
ref. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/15/us/boston-marathon-explosions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 I hope that Obama fans won't hide/color out this main news. 91.83.194.227 ( talk) 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that enough time spent to declare that this terrorist attack was significant, so it should be included in the main article. 91.83.184.187 ( talk) 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you give a reference that Wikipedia blocks the unregistered users to suggest edit(s) ? "instead of switching ips" you are totally wrong, I'm not switching manually the IP addresses, I have dynamic IP (like 99% of the users where I live), and only the internet provider's router decide when to request a new IP. BTW today is the 5th day that cnn is roughly continuously on breaking news, just proving that it is not a minor local event, Obama visited Boston. 91.82.0.138 ( talk) 18:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have read a few of the pages on current politicians here, and all of them include a section of questionable actions, criticism, and other information not on the positive side. I noticed more on the Republican pages than Independent or Democrat. Wikipedia has been very good at keeping things neutral, but this page is not neutral bias. From what I read I am under the impression that someone is actively editing this page on a near daily basis, removing items that cast any shadow of controversy on him.
I must call the neutrality of this article into question. There is no mention of his questioned birth status recently heard in the US Supreme Court, what SS numbers are assigned, names he has used in the past, nor his controversial terms in the Illinois legislature or at the federal level.
The validity of the controversy, whether factual or not should be included here for a non-biased and neutral article. As in the old saying "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" are needed for a neutral bias. This article reads like a puff news item, not up to the standards of Wikipedia. Milspecsim ( talk) 01:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, I was waiting for when this would get to the "I voted for him" line. If I had a nickel for every time in the seven years I've been editing this article that someone came on here to tell us how unbalanced, censored, whitewashed, pro-Obama this article is - and then rushed to assure us that they voted for him - I would retire. Tvoz/ talk 07:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Also note how he/she believes that the constitution says all tax increases/bills must originate from the house. Following that false logic, because the Republicans control the house and they are anti-tax, then such a "tax bill" like Obamacare could never be constitutional because the Republican controlled house would have never agreed to it. You got to love "false neutral" people who claim they are neutral, or even liberal, then turn around and spout Tea Party BS. 74.79.34.29 ( talk) 11:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section we are directed to mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies. Significance is established by the notability in RS. Several RS established notability of several separate issues, we now must select the most notable one or more and include it. My specific suggestion would be the Disposition Matrix and the collateral damage resulting from the use of drones. Darkstar1st ( talk) 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
tangential discussion of appropriateness of phrase Shuckin' and jivin' |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
User:Phoenix and Winslow is desperate to see Obama cop a similar amount of criticism to Dubya. I'm not American. On the international stage, Dubya lied about WMDs, taking much of the western world, including my country, into a pointless war. His overall performance damaged America's image massively on the world stage. He is generally seen as a dishonest fool in most of the world. Obama has done nothing in that league. Maybe he will. He's got over three years to go. But so far, no. Demanding that Obama's article contain the same amount of criticism as one of America's worst ever Presidents is just stupid. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
i suggest we add the Kill List controversy which resulted in the death of two US citizens by drone. NYT [17] and this source NBC [18] which uses the term controversy in the story title. please respond with support or oppose then explain, comments will be moved to a different section. Darkstar1st ( talk) 10:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
5 or so editors have made their objections known, all have now been addressed and satisfied correct? one editor has suggested it is undue, however that cannot be the case as the article would be undue without the edit, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. being featured in a 12 page article in the nyt and mentioned in several other widely read rs over years would certainly qualify as significant, and there is certainly a lack of criticism in the article, therefore all sides are not currently represented. Darkstar1st ( talk) 09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help); Text "
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/18/obama-transparency-takes-turn-under-microscope-after-attacks-on-romney/" ignored (
help)