![]() | 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 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | → | Archive 83 |
should there be a section on his deal with the Russians regarding Syria and chemical weapons? Pass a Method talk 17:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Skimming through the article, it seemed a little too much like I was reading a series of very densely packed facts with an overly positive tone, not a high-quality Wikipedia/encyclopedic article... It might be a good idea for any editors that work on it regularly to go over it with that in mind when they can. (FWIW, I'm a liberal that voted for him, so this isn't a bias issue on my part.) — Xyzzy☥the☥Avatar 00:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Blame Wikipedia for grade inflation. This article is supposed to be the very best of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Question relating to this article has been answered. See WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am concerned that this article still states "first African American" president. Clearly, as we all know, Obama is of mixed race. Therefore, this is FACTUALLY inaccurate. It doesn't matter what he identifies as, it matters what the FACTS are. It is very disturbing to think Wikipedia thinks itself unbiased and factual if it allows living people to dictate what an ENCYCLOPEDIA states about them to the point of denying and actively deleting FACTS. I am a mixed race individual myself, and I find it rather unfortunate that this continues. Do other people have the right to state what they are in their wikipedia articles? Does he have the right to edit supposed unbiased information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumacdon ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I clicked on the username. This person says he or she is "half Hispanic" and presents the idea that "mixed race" is a race in and of itself. Given that text, this person is not very bright. B-Machine ( talk) 19:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, being Hispanic does make me biracial, or do you not know that Hispanics can be of numerous races? I suppose you know what race my mother is? This shows your lack of intellect, not mine. I simply want mixed race individuals to be celebrated., not hidden. There are very very few representations in the media or on TV. I am proud of the fact his parents were of different races, I love diversity like that. I would fight just as hard if he was half-Filipino and half-Black. This is not meant to be a discouragement of being African American, quite the opposite. I realize that there is a great deal of racism against Obama, and that infuriates me, but that has nothing to do with what I have stated. Each one of you has acted in hate and not contributed any calm, meaningful, debate on the subject. The word "pure" never left my mouth, nor did I even think that word. You might be surprised to know, or did you actually read my bio, I studied and still study race and ethnicity, easily know as much as you, and am simply fighting for this country to embrace biracial people instead of making everything about racism and politics. NO offense was intended. ( Jumacdon ( talk) 04:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)) Also, I did read the explanation above, and I understand it must be frustrating to have people beat a dead horse, so to speak. I am sure there are a million Obama haters constantly trying to change the article. I don't agree with the "tertiary" source stuff, that is ridiculous. His birth certificate should suffice in stating he is biracial, that is a PRIMARY source. Needless to say, I still disagree with that part of the article, but it is what it is and I apologize for wasting your time. ( Jumacdon ( talk) 05:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
In an ideal world, yes, that would be great. NOT the world we live in...besides, once it has been made a big deal about, it is in the public realm of debate. Regardless, is there something wrong with people of different races being together? It sure seems like this society does not embrace it. ( Jumacdon ( talk) 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)) |
My suggestion for the main article: The United States federal government entered a shutdown on October 1, 2013, suspending services deemed "non-essential" by the Antideficiency Act. (ref. http://reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/usa-fiscal-courts-idUSL1N0HQ2AK20130930 ) During the shutdown, most "non-essential" government employees are furloughed. This results in approximately 800,000 public servants being put on indefinite unpaid leave beginning October 1.(ref. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/politics/federal-agencies-lay-out-contingency-plans-for-possible-shutdown.html?_r=0) The White House estimates that a one-week shutdown could cost the US economy $10 billion.(ref. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/30/heres-how-government-shutdown-hurts-american-people) "A shutdown", President Barack Obama stated, "will have a very real economic impact on real people, right away." (ref. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-sept-30-remarks-on-looming-government-shutdown/2013/09/30/87437ea6-2a10-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html )
As this event is quite important and significant it should be mentioned in the article. 91.83.4.198 ( talk) 22:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Article of president without views of energy in the United States is in my opinion not complete. It will influence the future of mankind. Keystone XL pipeline was actual. [1] I can make the issue more complete with the arguments of the Petroleum exploration in the Arctic. Watti Renew ( talk) 16:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Barack Soetero has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm really wondering why you archived the previous page, why archive 78 is so short. My only guess is that the real reson is the unpleasant topic about the Government shutdown. Please keep wikipedia policy and standard rules, just checked the previous archived talk pages here and every one of them was much longer. Moreover what I have found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page this says that: "The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB or has more than 10 main topics." We were very far from these points, only 1 main topic (about government shutdown), and its size was 4560 bytes, so less than 5 KB (or 9494 bytes if we count the closed topic also, but in this case also we would be still under 10 KB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.204.99 ( talk) 08:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
71.40.207.2 posted this comment on 16 October 2012 ( view all feedback).
I was very dissapointed when I looked at the personal information box and realized it didn't say his salary. My friends and I are very curious and want to fix this.
Any thoughts?
Industrialisation ( talk) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=President_of_the_United_States#Compensation
WP:DNFTT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Watch and read the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10395183/Barack-Obama-catches-fainting-pregnant-woman-during-Obamacare-speech.html I would say this is significant, historical event. Should be included in the main article, embed the video also! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.138.148 ( talk) 17:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
WP:NOTAFORUM :) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In one section of this article, reference is made to the fact that Mr. Obama publicly supports same-sex marriage. In another section, the article states that he claims to be a devout Christian. This is contradictory. One cannot be a devout Christian and support same sex marriage; devout Christians follow the Bible, and the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin. Please change one of these statements. 173.49.201.12 ( talk) 01:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Generalisations of a religious bigot countered by generalisations that make no distinction of Old and New Testament. Classy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 ( talk) 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
Barak Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that does not constitute he is an African American. If this article is using African American to distinguish skin color, then he is black. Referring to him as an African American has no factual base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.83.69 ( talk) 14:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The article's introduction calls Barack Obama "the first African American to hold the office [of President of the United States]. Yet his mother was white, so he is half-African American, often colloquially referred to as "mixed," "mixed-race," or in some places (though many consider the term obsolete for reasons of political correctness) "Mulatto". I propose that the introduction should describe him as the first "half black" or "half African American" president (allegations about Warren G. Harding notwithstanding). 207.7.105.10 ( talk) 18:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)NZ
Forgive me if this has already been discussed in the archives, but didn't Obama oppose the individual mandate during his presidential campaign, or at least semi-oppose it? This seems highly notable. Perhaps someone with more knowledge and interest in the subject can address it. OckRaz mentioned it in PPACA; I reverted because it seemed out of place, but it would seem to belong somewhere in Barack Obama. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Obama saved Gotham city with the help of Batman and Batkid. ref. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PV36IRKD90 and http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-batkid-san-francisco-20131115,0,4450811.story#axzz2kpwPEzrV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.133.133 ( talk) 19:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Obama Senior is said to have "remarried". The article does not say how often he remarried. He seems to have allegedly remarried about five times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.222.5 ( talk) 11:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Re [6]: "At the same time, Herren tracked down the 1692 baptism certificate for one Hans Gutknecht – Obama’s seventh-great grandfather on his mother’s side." - I don't think we're including every single country Obama's ancestors were born in. -- NeilN talk to me 17:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The box on this page is now nearly ~2 years old. I guess it just means "This is when the article was FA" status, but why it hasn't been updated since I have no idea. -- Somchai Sun ( talk) 17:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a Request for Comment at Talk:Browning Citori#RfC: Obama skeet photo staged? The question under discussion is: "The article contains a photo of President Obama firing a shotgun while shooting skeet. Should the caption say that the photo was staged or otherwise faked?" Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 20:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The RfC has been closed, so we're good to go. Thanks to those who participated. — Mudwater ( Talk) 00:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This article hardly says a lick about the people who died in Benghazi because of him. Someone please expand on this greatly. This is all over the news. There's only one sentence about Obamacare, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.18.176.3 ( talk) 01:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to change Barrack Obamas photo to a more sophisticated one.
ABloodyTruth ( talk) 05:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
proposal has not gained consensus; further discussion appears to be unproductive |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article, as it currently stands, overlooks two points about Obama's parents' marriage that are significant and notable: - They were married 6 months before he was born, indicating that the pregnancy was several months along at the time of the event, My effort toward a fix has been repeatedly reverted, with one reason presented being, "Wedlock was a big deal back at the time, sure, but not now in the 21st century". I see this as a mistake. Facts need to be placed into historical context for them to convey full meaning. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states at the time of his birth, and was not made legal until he was about to start 1st grade. This article has no mention of the word "interracial", let alone link to an article on the topic. Both points are significant factors in his parents' relationship, and this article will be improved by adding specific mention of these two facts. As it stands now, both facts can be derived from info that is given (dates and ancestry). But leaving out specific mention creates a vacuum that is akin to having the article not mention that Obama is the first black president, and then justifying such omission by saying something like, "this is the 21st century, and race isn't important". By leaving out these two points, we are failing to give proper context.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 02:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposed edit:
Current edit:
For anyone who doesn't like hearing this from me, you can listen to Barack Obama himself discussing the importance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3nRBwlcE-0&t=11s
Notice also that the year he first gives for his parents' marriage is 1960, when it can be expected that a lawyer with his level of intelligence would be perfectly aware that his parents got married in the same year that he was born in. While it is not our place to delve into the reasons why he did this, it is certainly our job to communicate the straight fact that he was born six months after his parents got married.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 08:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
How Obama Made It?: A Layman's Guide, by Young Sop Ahn
A comparison of John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama, by Natascha Drews
The Obama Question: A Progressive Perspective, by Gary Dorrien
Barack Obama in Hawai'i and Indonesia: The Making of a Global President, by Dinesh Sharma
That last one give a reference of Obama himself, and here is that exact quote from the original: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, by Barack Obama
Barack Obama writes a book about his life, and in choosing the title he picks "...A Story of Race...", and you all freak out when I suggest inserting the word interracial as a single adjective to help describe his parents' marriage. There are a wealth of books written about Barack Obama, and the issues I have pointed to are addressed by a wealth of those book authors. Yet people here freak out as though I am making some crazed push into uncharted territory. Ok, let's say that no one here likes to read books. Just take a look at this webpage from Biography.com: http://www.biography.com/people/ann-dunham-434238 The very first sentence is:
There are plenty other references available. I will go out on a limb with an estimate of hundreds. But so long as editors here prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand, there won't be a very bright outlook for an informed consensus on this.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 23:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I am astounded by the level of willful ignorance expressed by the vocal majority here. No biographical significance to Barack Obama? When he tells you in his own words of the significance? When he has written a book of his life and the title itself focuses on the significance? Are any of you bothering to read the quotes provided? Barack Obama himself is telling us that there was fear that his mother was going to be murdered - have her head chopped off - and he would be taken away. Yeah, not much impact on his life there. All of the authors quoted above are writing about Barack Obama's life and they all are communicating the significance. I spent 10 seconds doing a google search, and just presented the first four hits. The question has become, How deeply do we want to bury our heads in the sand here? Take
JoeSperrazza's reply, for instance: "I've not yet seen ... references to reliable sources noting the timing of their marriage..." One explanation, Joe, might be that you poked your eyes out before posting that reply. Here's what you are choosing to ignore: From 1st book cited- "at the time of their wedding, Ann Dunham was already three months pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr." If I had the technology, I would post these quotes in Braille, because there appears to be a blatant aversion to so much as a visual scan of the printed word here in this forum amongst those willing to speak up on this. You all are certainly free to continue to ignore everything I've provided, but it is perfectly clear what is important to all of these authors when writing about Barack Obama, and it is perfectly clear to me what belongs in this Wikipedia article. I'll highlight one more quote:
At the time I had written that, I was not aware of the depth that this forum was capable of, but now that has become quite clear. I am not so much disappointed with the editors who have expressed their choice to ignore the wealth of info provided. My deepest disappointment is with the untold numbers of editors who are sitting back and choosing to remain silent on this. The racial aspect of Obama's parents' marriage isn't important enough to mention here? Nelson Mandela's body isn't turning in his grave, because it hasn't even been buried yet.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 22:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
New source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7An5LPXjOa4&t=2m40s
The constraints of a news report are often a lot tighter than what Wikipedia editors face, and in this short NBC News report lasting only a few minutes, this point is highlighted not only a single time, but twice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7An5LPXjOa4&t=30s (same video)
The racial aspect of the marriage isn't worth mentioning? To NBC News it was worth mentioning TWICE within the span of two minutes in a single short report - once from Obama's own mouth. This was in 2008, discussing his qualifications to become president, and the importance of his upbringing toward that end.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 09:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Another video interviewing Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mX_j89SoSQ&t=3m19s
Two things to note: So clearly ABC News belongs to the same camp as NBC News (report posted above) regarding the importance of this issue, along with the wealth of authors quoted here. And as with NBC, this ABC report also makes multiple mention within the same report as to the importance of Obama's interracial roots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mX_j89SoSQ&t=7m53s (same video)
All of these sources point to a conclusion that we need to make it part of the Wikipedia story that we are choosing to present about him. This particular aspect can be fixed by inserting the single word " interracial". (Ok, y'all can freak out now about how adding these 11 letters will destroy the article.)-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 10:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Earlier in this section, the text from the biography.com webpage was quoted. Well let's have a look at what their video program presented:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89vsCdn-_0&t=4m27s
That quote was from a program that fills an hour long tv spot. A common rebuttal here has become whether or not such info needs to be edited into a concise summary of Barack Obama. To help gain that perspective, rewind this exact same program to the very beginning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89vsCdn-_0&t=14s
Biography.com lets you scratch their surface where after all of 14 seconds they start into a summary of the interracial nature of Obama's upbringing. That's not 14 seconds into their program even. That's just the intro to their program.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 20:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
Tonight I am deciding to take a break from posting about Barack Obama. I will have a look back here after a week has past to see what has developed. Curiously, there are people here who see me to be obsessive. One simple way to prove this to myself is to step back and stay quiet. But the bigger reason for my decision is because of the central position of the WPolicy quote that's been posted tonight - a direct quote from WP:DUE. There is no shortage of people here who appear to be passionate about the view that adding a short and simple mention of these facts would not be an improvement to this article. Yet the wealth of sources posted here (read 'all') support the understanding that the proposal will improve the article. One week seems to be plenty of time for anyone who cares to provide support for such a position to post it here. I will return to see how things develop, and then may take appropriate action in line with Wikipedia policy (or I may return to find that you all have done that yourselves).-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 06:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC) |
date of birth 1095 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.12.234.4 ( talk) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Close per WP:TPNO "The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This has been a sad week in the Wikipedia community. Here on this page a major argument got cleanly deleted as though the facts it presented had never been posted, and then another person came along and unilaterally declared the active discussion closed, compressing it with an archive tag. But that isn't the sad part. People do messed up things all the time. The sad part is that each and every person who saw what had happened just stood by and didn't do anything about it. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is very sad to see signs of it becoming a fascism. The only tool these active editors are missing is the power to delete change history. Me imagining that all of the bystanders would like to give it to them makes me shudder. Each and every one of you have tacitly cast your votes.
Acroterion, your vote was active - demonstrating that you will revert a small vandalism, yet stand by the larger destructive action. So concurrently, there is a small part of me that wants to say thank you, while a much larger part is wondering... "What The Fox?!"
|
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 know that "socialism" is equivalent to "communism" in the U.S., but by international standards, any left-leaning politician is a socialist. I've seen that just about every other even nominally liberal politician is part of this wikiproject, so I ask: if Tony Blair (hardly a far-left politician) is part of WikiProject Socialism, then why should Obama be excluded? 78.70.153.159 ( talk) 22:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Close - not appropriate for this article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Allowing_old_discussions_to_be_rehashed_on_purpose_to_increase_editor_participation.3F_.28So_newcomers_can_get_a_sense_of_inclusiveness.29 I've looked at an interesting forum post from a user who argued that by not allowing old discussions to be rehashed (I used Barack Obama as an example) (and I think without new evidence would apply here!): "They are bored and unable to pay attention and unable to have the same discussions--which made the people talking a cohesive group--with newcomers so no one feels like they belong." and he argues that's how many Usenet groups declined into being "stale and intolerant" Would anyone mind taking a look? WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
|
User making assertions blocked for abuse of multiple accounts |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Any assertion that someone who has the ability to grant pardons, secretly if need be, is the product of bigamy or statutory rape would need to be sourced to at least one WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed academic legal journal article with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Whether Obama is a "bastard" or not is impossible to source because illegitimacy law was abolished by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, without any provisions for grandfathering, so to speak. If there are no such sources forthcoming in the next few days, I propose that this section be archived as a de facto public political figure character assasination attempt. EllenCT ( talk) 14:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Should there be an addition to the Domestic Policy section to cover "Civil Liberties" or "Privacy Rights." It seems like the NSA thing is worth mentioning when discussing his presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubintheclub ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Closed. See FAQ for details. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the first sentence it says that Obama is a Christian. We need to change this to "Obama says he is a Christian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:22FF:3CF0:0:0:0:30 ( talk) 22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
|
During the past four to five weeks the emerging news coverage of President Obama's response to the foreign policy issue of tensions in the Ukraine and Crimea have received daily coverage in the mainstream press yet no subsection on this issue is present on the Wikipedia page for President Obama. Two editors have reverted the attempt to present this as a short one paragraph subsection oriented to the Washington Post quotes in an editorial report given over last week-end, both on the President's page here and at the John Kerry page. The issue has been covered daily by NY Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe for the last month and some short version of the president's position and comments would appear to be notable for inclusion. A short though expanded two-paragraph version of the previous version is presented here for comment, since the one-paragraph version described above was not seen as sufficient and Washington Post coverage alone was remarked upon as being insufficient by editors.
At present two editors seem to support the second paragraph alone (see John Kerry page), while two seem to oppose the second paragraph alone, therefore the first paragraph is added here as clarification of this Presidential foreign policy issue which has been notable in the mainstream press on a daily basis for several weeks. This topic is presently fully absent from the Barack Obama page. This short subsection was expanded with further cites after the request of another editor for more sources. The current Page for the President already covers several open-ended issues at various stages of development both early and late. This short subsection contains notable information in the mainstream press and is useful for inclusion on the Barack Obama page. FelixRosch ( talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama-ism, for those here that may not have seen it, given the odd hyphenation. I stumbled across it by sheer chance today. Tarc ( talk) 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ #2 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why do you call Barrack Obama II the first "African American" or "Black" President? A person born in America is American. An "African American" describes a person born in Africa who becomes an American citizen. His mother was a "White" American of (partly)European descent. Commonly referred to as "White" or "Caucasian." Obama is of mixed race ancestry. According to the American Heritage College dictionary, a person born of one Black and one White parent is a Mulatto, a rarely used term but more accurate. Respecting Obama's diverse racial heritage is correct and more inclusive. Christosveritaseternum ( talk) 14:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Chistosveritaseternum 3/16/14
|
Hi! On March 4, 2014, Obama submitted his fiscal year 2015 budget request to Congress. I've started an article about it - President Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal. I was hoping other editors would be interested in improving the page and wanted to invite you to do so. I was also hoping to get other editors' input on how to insert a link or two to the article on this page, possibly in the section about economic policy? It could be something simple like:
Or longer with more information about what is in the proposal (there is a ton of relevant material that could be used), like:
As I said, there is a lot of material - defense spending, taxes, education, etc - that could be included. Does anyone have any comments on what they think this should say or where in the article it should appear? Thanks! HistoricMN44 ( talk) 17:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Before someone ends up blocked for WP:3RR... Shouldn't the alt text at least identify Obama by name? -- NeilN talk to me 19:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the sentence that says: "According to November 2013 polls, Obama's average approval rating fell to 41%, thus setting a new low for the president." This seems a bit out of place the way it is in this section. Wouldn't it make more sense to put this right after the sentence talking about his poll numbers after his second inauguration? The rest of the section details his image in foreign countries, so the sentence seems kind of wonky the way it is now. Twyfan714 ( talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Barack Obama was born the year of the first freedom ride and was two years old when Martin Luther King gave his I have a dream speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.48.129 ( talk) 09:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The procedure for tagging an article with "pov" or whatever has, IMO, been followed correctly; a user brings a concern to the talk page and tags the section or article as warranted. What's bad is either "drive-by tagging" (no discussion) or "badges of shame" (tags left for months). Neither has happened here, so just discuss above and carry on, pls. Tarc ( talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (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.
Obama is bi-racial or mixed race. He is neither from Africa nor is he black or white.
Correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.252.198 ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
In the previous thread, there was a proposal agreed upon by at least two people to remove this section entirely, on the grounds that it consists entirely of cherry-picked polls, and polls are difficult to represent fairly in a WP:NPOV way. Do we have consensus on this proposal? TBSchemer ( talk) 04:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I will welcome input from other editors on how to make this section WP:NPOV. Simply, please refrain from WP:PERSONAL attacks. Don't throw around accusations of racism. TBSchemer ( talk) 18:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems like the consensus position is to remove this section. I have made the change. TBSchemer ( talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts:
Greetings from Spain!!!. Could anyone put in Wiki Commons photo of President Obama with the Prime Minister of my country, Mariano Rajoy? Thank you. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/january-2014-photo-day -- Campeones 2008 ( talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I changed "President" to "president" in the opening sentence "Barack Hussein Obama II ( /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current president of the United States, and the first African American to hold the office." My edit summary mentioned the WP:JOBTITLES example of "...sworn in as the 38th president of the United States..." The change was reverted, capitalizing President, with the edit summary: "That is a reference to Obama being the current occupant of the office of President of the United States."
While the second part of the sentence ("the first African American to hold the office") refers to the office, the first part refers to the job, as evidenced by the adjectives "44th and current". There has only been one office of the President of the United States, which is capitalized, while there have been many presidents of the United States, including the 44th and current one, President Obama. (Just to be clear, I mean political office, not a physical office). WP:JOBTITLES, part of MOS:CAPS, gives the similar usage of "the 38th president of the United States". It's also in keeping with the style of major US newspapers (e.g., NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, Washington Post). It's a bit confusing, because it varies on usage: "Barrack Obama is the president of the United States", "Barrack Obama holds the office of President of the United States", "She introduced President of the United States Barrack Obama". I'd suggest using lower case, in keeping with MOS:CAPS guidelines.
Agyle ( talk) 04:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Newspaper | Lowercase/ Uppercase |
---|---|
New York Times | 9 lc, 0 UC |
Los Angeles Times | 10 lc, 0 UC |
USA Today | 10 lc, 0 UC |
Washington Post | 2 lc, 0 UC |
Wallstreet Journal | 8 lc, 0 UC |
Chicago Tribune | 10 lc, 0 UC |
Toronto Star (Can.) | 7 lc, 3 UC |
Guardian (UK) | 9 lc, 0 UC |
Daily Telegraph (UK) | 3 lc, 7 UC |
Herald Sun (Aus.) | 4 lc, 6 UC |
Times of India (India) | 7 lc, 1 UC |
Irish Independent (R. of I.) | 3 lc, 7 UC |
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May I edit the page because the Thai Wikipedia says it's a featured article. 68.5.244.183 ( talk) 19:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the link Chicago-style politics to the "See also" section at the end of the article, due to Obama being involved in Chicago politics and the apt comparison of him to the style. -- 166.205.68.28 ( talk) 20:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Source http://www.nationalreview.com/article/349610/obamas-chicago-way-john-fund -- 166.205.68.28 ( talk) 20:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
In the University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney subsection there is an image that is too big. The image partially overlaps with the subsection's title. The source code for the image is not within the subsection. The image should be decreased in size or moved. SMP0328. ( talk) 01:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I got rid of this addition because of the use of weasel words ("many"). I'm not saying the addition is unwanted, but it would certainly need to be rewritten and discussed on this talk page before being added back. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Obama's former membership of the New Party is a fact confirmed by primary evidence that is acknowledged by two reputable conservative sources ( The American Spectator and National Review), a reputable moderate source who is often labeled a liberal ( Ben Smith at BuzzFeed), and a reputable libertarian source ( Reason).
I would like to know what your disagreement actually is. Accusing someone of using a 'talking point' is itself a talking point, ironically.
Is your disagreement based on:
1. a belief that none of those sources is reputable? 2. a belief that the claim isn't true? 3. a belief that the information isn't important enough for Wikipedia?
If point 1, then I point out that all four of those sources are used by a wide range of Wikipedia articles without any controversy. They are widely regarded as legitimate sources of information by the users of Wikipedia and by the rest of the media.
If point 2, then I ask, why do you think so, considering that two reputable conservative sources, one reputable liberal/moderate source, and one reputable libertarian source think otherwise? Only two of those sources can be considered 'right-wing'.
If point 3, I point out that many Wikipedia articles on politicians contain information about previous memberships of political parties. Examples include Ronald Reagan and John Reid. In fact, even Wikipedia articles on non-politicians often contain such information, for example Christopher Hitchens.
Renren8123 ( talk) 02:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tvoz: “Even one of your own sources, Ben Smith, quotes the founder of the party as saying they didn't have members - putting this in the infobox suggests otherwise.” Read the last update in the Smith article: “UPDATE: Richmond sends over a New Party page from 1997 that makes pretty clear that they saw themselves at the time as having members: The New Party is run by dues-paying members, who are organized into chapters. The national organization provides support for chapter growth and coordination. Every member gets one vote.”
In Smith’s own words, it’s now “pretty clear” that they did have members.
“The most that might be accurate is that he once received their endorsement, for his State Senate run, which is trivial regarding his whole life, and a world apart from this being his "former" political party.” Why are you personally judging what might be accurate?
“I'll be glad to amend that to "fringe talking point"”. You didn’t catch my point that calling something a ‘talking point’ is itself a talking point. And in what universe are The American Spectator, National Review, BuzzFeed and Reason "fringe"?
“a newer, astounding piece in reason.com that compares Bill de Blasio and Obama including such bon mots as "Both Obama and de Blasio are married to black women they met at work."” What’s your point?
“I'm surprised Benghazi isn't and Obamacare aren't mentioned.” Again, I don’t see your point.
“No, this New Party nonsense is neither accurate nor appropriate for this article.” Again, who are you to judge whether it’s accurate? And if previous memberships of political parties are not "appropriate" information, then why is such information mentioned in many Wikipedia articles on politicians and even some non-politicians, as I pointed out?
Johnuniq: “What secondary source has written an analysis of these claims and their significance?” Those four sources are secondary sources, and the BuzzFeed writer was an initially skeptical source who was persuaded by the evidence. Renren8123 ( talk) 04:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tvoz: “Actually that first part was me, not Johnuniq”. Noted and duly amended.
“Smith's article clearly states the opposite of what Kurtz was alleging: he says that the founder of the New Party, Joel Rogers, reiterated that there weren't members”. Yes, that is what Smith says that Rogers said. Clearly, Smith himself does not agree with Rogers. Smith’s disagreement with Rogers is explicit: “UPDATE: Richmond sends over a New Party page from 1997 that makes pretty clear that they saw themselves at the time as having members”. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Therefore it’s not for us to doubt Smith.
“And Smith did not say that he received any documentation to verify that Obama was a member”. I never claimed that Smith had said that he had “received any documentation”. Smith says that Kurtz “yesterday turned up something that appears to contradict claims from Obama and others that he’d never been a member of something called the New Party”. Smith reports Rogers as having contradicted Kurtz's claims, but Smith himself never vouches for Rogers’s denials. Just look at the language: “he also said”, “Rogers stuck by”, “Rogers added” etc. The most that Smith is willing to concede is the lack of clarity about “what membership required or entailed”, though that doubt too is somewhat lifted with the final update. Smith does not challenge the existence of membership or Obama’s status as a member.
“So your using this as confirmation that this dubious point belongs in the infobox”. Well, it doesn’t have to belong there, but it should be somewhere in the article. But, if it’s to appear in the main text, it’ll take a full sentence, rather than the two words that I contributed.
“Hillary a Goldwater youth”. Do you know how many citations there are in Hillary Clinton’s Wikipedia article to support the assertion that she supported Barry Goldwater? Just one: a book written by a Goldwater Republican in 2006 (not exactly an unbiased source surely!) that can’t be accessed by me or, I presume, by you either. Yet, I provide four online citations from reputable sources, two conservative, one libertarian and one moderate/liberal, and yet that’s just dismissed. Also, you mentioned being ‘appropriate’. Why is it appropriate to mention the political affiliations that Clinton held when she wasn’t even an adult yet, while it’s allegedly inappropriate to mention the political affiliations that Obama held when he was not only an adult but a politician too? That’s just nonsensical, especially when an entire paragraph is dedicated to Clinton’s childhood politics, whereas I intended to add merely literally two words on the matter of Obama’s former adult, professional politics.
“As for why I am making a judgment about what's appropriate, that's what editors do here.” That’s another straw man. I never claimed you couldn’t make judgments about what’s appropriate. I said you can’t make judgments about what’s accurate: that would be original research on your part. As for what’s appropriate, of course you can make the judgment, but Wikipedia should be consistent. I have given you examples, and you yourself have mentioned examples, where politicians’ and even non-politicians' previous political affiliations are mentioned. Why should Obama be an exception to this?
“There are lots of sources that repeat the claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii too.” Not reputable ones, though. As I said, The American Spectator, National Review, BuzzFeed and Reason are widely cited in many Wikipedia articles.
“it is a straight-up opinion piece, no sources to verify his claim that "documents indicate" that Obama joined the party, and therefore not a reasonable source to be taken seriously for this "fact"”. That’s another judgment by you of accuracy. Many Wikipedia articles cite many opinion pieces.
“This New Party Stanley Kurtz National Review talking point is right up there with whether Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya who foisted death panels on an unsuspecting public while lying about what really went on in Benghazi.” That’s just another straw-man argument.
“as determined by consensus”. The consensus is that information on political affiliations can go into an article, even if the subject is not a politician and even if those affiliations were held during childhood, and furthermore an entire paragraph can be included on the matter, even if there are only one or two citations and even if such citations are from very political sources that can’t be easily accessed. You agree with that, and yet you want such a strong exception for Obama that not even literally just two words on his previous political affiliation as an adult and a politician can be included, even though there are four easily-accessible citations from a politically diverse range of reputable sources. Renren8123 ( talk) 09:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Johnuniq: "I am not going to enter into a forum debate". OK, no problem. Why are you telling me that, though? Why not just stay silent, if that is what you wish to do? I repeat the fact that Smith does not deny the existence of a party membership or Obama's status as a party member. In fact, Smith says, "According to the minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting, which Kurtz found in an ACORN archive: Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party". Once again, I point out the contrast with Smith's reporting of Rogers's view, for which Smith does not vouch at all: “he also said”, “Rogers stuck by what he had told me”, “Rogers added” etc. Renren8123 ( talk) 11:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tarc: "Obama received an endorsement". The evidence that says he was endorsed also says that he was a member. "a minor state party". The party existed in mutiple states. "Their endorsement is trivial". I've addressed this point already. Please read my comments before replying. To repeat, how is it so trivial that it does not warrant literally just two words in what is a very extensive article, whereas Hillary Clinton's childhood political opinions warrant an entire paragraph in her article? "a speck of history unduly magnified by a select group of right-wing activists, nothing more than that". Tell that to Ben Smith and Reason, neither of whom can be described as "right-wing", but again I've addressed this point already. "it is unimportant to the wider political world". Is that why the moderate/liberal editor-in-chief of a major news website himself covered it? Renren8123 ( talk) 16:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikidemon: "Trivial factoid, a distorted version of which became a minor partisan campaign smear, not significant enough for the article". Once again, I request that commenters read before they reply. "shoehorning it in would violate NPOV". Again, I've addressed this point. But, I'll tell you what definitely does not constitute a NPOV: comments like "Overall, the country is clearly in stronger shape now than when Obama took office". It's OK to have an opinion, but clearly some of the people replying to me are being influenced by their biases, which is not OK. I find it rather worrying that contributors to, and administrators of, an encyclopedia feel no pressure even to pretend to be neutral! Renren8123 ( talk) 17:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tarc: "You don't need to quote little bits and pieces of what the other editors writes." If I don't, it's not necessarily clear which particular statement I'm replying to. That is the standard, accepted method of argument and rebuttal. I don't intend it to be insulting, if that's what you're implying. "it is a minor party". Past political affiliations to minor parties are often mentioned on the Wikipedia pages of politicians and even non-politicians, as I've already said. In fact, I gave some examples: Christopher Hitchens, John Reid. "unremarkable save for being a talking point for the Drudge Reports of the country". As I said, I provided four reputable sources, two of which are decidedly not right-wing. "I won't be appearing in this article at any time, I am fairly comfortable in predicting." Perhaps you are right, but that's not an argument for why it shouldn't, and it's not something that any of us should be proud of if we want Wikipedia to be a legitimate encyclopedia and not a patchwork of fiefdoms overseen by people with strong and unhidden biases. Renren8123 ( talk) 17:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
A random (unsolicited) endorsement from the many he received in his senate campaign is not notable (certainly not here, on his main article; but it probably isn't noteworthy even on his Senate article, which doesn't list any other endorsements beyond the most politically significant one.) Additionally, the implication that he was an actual member of the party (as opposed to being endorsed by them) is not backed up by any evidence or even asserted by any reputable sources; the New Party was a party that attempted to gain ground through "fusion" endorsements (where they would endorse big-ticket candidates and people could vote for this candidate through them, allowing the party to gain followers and power without splitting the vote -- something that is common in eg. New York with the Working Families Party.) This means that their endorsement is insignificant and says nothing about Obama; they would have endorsed any candidate who got the nomination, because their strategy was to encourage voters to support the Democratic candidate (whoever it was) on their party line rather than on the Democratic line. Read their article for details; the point is, their endorsement was not significant to Barack Obama and therefore doesn't belong on this article. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
My Internet isn't as slow as some people's, but not as fast as others. Making two minor edits takes way longer than it should. It's a few bytes shorter, but this thing really needs a concerted weight-loss effort. I'll leave it to those with the slower and faster connections to be motivated and able enough, respectively. Yes, you can! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has long outlive any usefulness it may have had. (non-admin closure)
Calidum Go Bruins! 01:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
I just spent an hour skimming the Wiki articles of each president the US has had. These articles typically refer to actions, responses, and policies of the president, along with a description of how these events were received by the public, and how the president's popularity was affected. Notably, the article on Barack Obama is missing any information about the critical response many of his actions have received. This article reads like a campaign website, listing all of his "achievements" along with far too many legislative details, with little information about the history of how these things happened, or what resulted from them. Of note, the section on the 2010 midterms is a single sentence, and omits any mention of WHY Obama was so unpopular in 2010, and about how his 2010 legislative policies were received. The section on the 2012 elections omits any mention of HOW he won the election, or what sort of campaign message he was leveling against his opponent. The section on "health care reform" mentions far too many legislative details (that could easily be gleaned by reading the page on PPACA), while omitting any mention of what sort of criticisms were leveled against the policy, how it has affected Obama's popularity, or how the implementation of the new health care system was handled. Furthermore, there is no mention of the IRS targeting scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the many court cases against Obama's executive overreach, the fact that Obama was held in contempt by a federal court, the fact that Obama created the largest and most intrusive domestic surveillance operation in human history, his racially-motivated comments and policies, or the fact that he has been so widely and openly criticized as a totalitarian, a socialist, a fascist, and other labels for authoritarian philosophies. These types of facts are a major focus of the articles for previous presidents, and were certainly a dominant component of the page on George W. Bush during his presidency. The level of president-saluting sterilization in this article is positively Orwellian. TBSchemer ( talk) 00:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC) As an example of this Orwellian cleansing, I included a series of polls showing that Obama is "the most divisive and polarizing president in history" in the first-term legacy section, and the change was rapidly reverted by Tarc. This leaves the section as a paragraph of praise from academics, with little general-public polling data. The reversion can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Barack_Obama&diff=603081323&oldid=603080058 TBSchemer ( talk) 01:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
So does anyone here have an interest in seeing this article become more of a historical account and less of a campaign page, or am I the only one? TBSchemer ( talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
As a new wikipedia member and as someone who unfortunately read this chat, I can see very clearly that your ideology has compromised your ability to edit, TBSchemer. 1st Corinthians 11:9 ( talk) 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The POV problems with this article are serious and real. If any editors are interested in having a truly civil discussion about the POV problems with this article, please do so here, and refrain from personal attacks. WP:PERSONAL TBSchemer ( talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Just my two cents: If George W. Bush can have, "Some pundits labeled Bush 'the worst president ever'" in his article without there being much of a fuss, then Obama should at least have more info on criticism. Either that, or if people don't want to include criticism (which it seems like most people here are wanting) then that should be taken out of Bush's article. My point is that Wikipedia should not have a bias on either side, and we need a balancing of this kind of thing in order to ensure that. Having a political debate on this talk page doesn't solve anything. You may agree or disagree with the criticism leveled at Obama, but that's no reason to keep it out. The sentence could say, "Obama's critics assert...yada yada yada" to be clear that they are others' opinions. Again that's just my opinion. Oh and one more thing: please let's try and be civil to one another. Resorting to personal attacks does nothing but hurt people's feelings. Twyfan714 ( talk) 00:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
102 years ago, more than 1,500 people died when the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg and sank, and yet the liberal media have never held President Obama accountable for this failure of leadership! -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A redirect, Obama, needs rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Barack Obama]] {{R from surname}} [[Category:Protected redirects]]
#REDIRECT [[Barack Obama]] {{Redr|hatnote|from surname|p2=nocat|from incomplete name|printworthy|protected}}
Template Redr is an alias for the {{
This is a redirect}} template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. "Hatnote" is an alias for {{
R mentioned in hatnote}}; the p#
parameter is used to suppress
Category:Surnames per
this discussion. Thank you in advance! –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX! 02:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of ~95 paragraphs in this article, around 40 begin with dates:
Sometimes it happens several paragraphs in a row. This isn't professional writing. — Designate ( talk) 14:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The G7 is currently meeting in Europe and Obama has issued his strongest foreign policy statement against Putin to date. Obama was asked to voice an international consensus opinion of the seven participating nations which was reported in the NY Times on this date as shown below. Is there any merit or explanation as to why the current page does not having a G7/G8 subsection since Obama has been and continues to be a de facto center of these meetings and a central international voice for expressing their consensus views. Could someone take a look at the quote included below (abridged) to make a comment on a possible G7/G8 subsection on this Page possibly under "Foreign Policy".
This summarizes Obama's position from over the last six months on Putin as well. However, it is the G7/G8 section which appears missing on this wikipedia Page as a recurrent event for Obama during his entire presidency. Is anything of this G7/G8 history for Obama something to consider for the Obama Page. FelixRosch ( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
[7] It is said that he wanted to quit smoking, but it is still an impertinent behavior. -- Ich bin nicht dein Kollegah ( talk) 04:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Her name is Sasha and not Natasha.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama
Prissy1213 ( talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
In line with Hillary Rodham Clinton-- 117.207.123.162 ( talk) 10:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents, Siena Research Institute, July 1, 2010
should be changed to
Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents, Siena Research Institute, July 1, 2010
to fix the link. Tarc ( talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (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.
Correction to article submission: Obama wasn't born in Honolulu, Hawaii; he had his records sealed up so that no one could see his true country of origin. This issue needs to be addressed on the article page instead of a false location of birth being posted instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.142.6 ( talk) 16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A Quinnipiac University poll has found that Barack Obama is considered to be the worst president since World War II.
Cites:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/02/Obama-Worst-President-World-War-II-Poll
DeanSoCal ( talk) 01:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It should include that he's the worst president since WW2. I love how Wiki protects Obama and i see no updates on his IRS, NSA, ACA Benghazi and other scandals? I read on Mitt's page that he use to be out of the state of Mass, but how about we write on how many golf trips, fund raisers and that 100 million dollar vacation Obama takes? How about all the corruption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7700:3A3:7DF6:E28F:E993:D19B ( talk) 18:51, 9 July 2014 (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.
The first sentence of the lead describes Obama as both ‘the 44th and current President of the United States’ and ‘the first African American to hold the office’. Should this latter description be moved elsewhere in the lead so that the first sentence focuses solely on Obama’s political position? As a quick comparison, the Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher articles mention their subjects’ social notability (being the first black and first woman leader respectively) in the second sentence, but leave aside the first one to focus on what they achieved, irrespective of race or sex. 86.133.243.146 ( talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you're too lazy to read the FAQ, Supersaiyen312, it says that Wikipedia defines the whole issue of Barack Obama's race by self-identification: Obama says he is African-American. End of story.
I'm completely with Tarc on this. The history of race in America - the continuing history - makes his election and re-election utterly extraordinary, and is absolutely a defining characteristic of his life story, which this article is telling. This is so notable that I believe it is necessary to be in the first sentence, and even if there are subsequent African American presidents in the near future, his being the first will always be a great deal more notable than the fact that he is the first from Hawaii. Tvoz/ talk 04:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tvoz above. The most notable (among other notable things) of the Obama presidency is his election and reelection as an African-American. To contend otherwise is to be (suspiciously) disingenuous. Juan Riley ( talk) 17:23, 4 July 2014 (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.
Where can we add this question to the article? Teetotaler 30 July, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Would this be the appropriate article to mention and/or link the assertions recently added at Cult of personality#United States that the Obama presidency is a cult of personality, or is that information better suited to either the Presidency, or perhaps the Public image, article? 2600:1006:B11F:927A:B945:D20A:9451:85D ( talk) 04:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | 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 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | → | Archive 83 |
should there be a section on his deal with the Russians regarding Syria and chemical weapons? Pass a Method talk 17:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Skimming through the article, it seemed a little too much like I was reading a series of very densely packed facts with an overly positive tone, not a high-quality Wikipedia/encyclopedic article... It might be a good idea for any editors that work on it regularly to go over it with that in mind when they can. (FWIW, I'm a liberal that voted for him, so this isn't a bias issue on my part.) — Xyzzy☥the☥Avatar 00:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Blame Wikipedia for grade inflation. This article is supposed to be the very best of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Question relating to this article has been answered. See WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am concerned that this article still states "first African American" president. Clearly, as we all know, Obama is of mixed race. Therefore, this is FACTUALLY inaccurate. It doesn't matter what he identifies as, it matters what the FACTS are. It is very disturbing to think Wikipedia thinks itself unbiased and factual if it allows living people to dictate what an ENCYCLOPEDIA states about them to the point of denying and actively deleting FACTS. I am a mixed race individual myself, and I find it rather unfortunate that this continues. Do other people have the right to state what they are in their wikipedia articles? Does he have the right to edit supposed unbiased information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumacdon ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I clicked on the username. This person says he or she is "half Hispanic" and presents the idea that "mixed race" is a race in and of itself. Given that text, this person is not very bright. B-Machine ( talk) 19:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, being Hispanic does make me biracial, or do you not know that Hispanics can be of numerous races? I suppose you know what race my mother is? This shows your lack of intellect, not mine. I simply want mixed race individuals to be celebrated., not hidden. There are very very few representations in the media or on TV. I am proud of the fact his parents were of different races, I love diversity like that. I would fight just as hard if he was half-Filipino and half-Black. This is not meant to be a discouragement of being African American, quite the opposite. I realize that there is a great deal of racism against Obama, and that infuriates me, but that has nothing to do with what I have stated. Each one of you has acted in hate and not contributed any calm, meaningful, debate on the subject. The word "pure" never left my mouth, nor did I even think that word. You might be surprised to know, or did you actually read my bio, I studied and still study race and ethnicity, easily know as much as you, and am simply fighting for this country to embrace biracial people instead of making everything about racism and politics. NO offense was intended. ( Jumacdon ( talk) 04:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)) Also, I did read the explanation above, and I understand it must be frustrating to have people beat a dead horse, so to speak. I am sure there are a million Obama haters constantly trying to change the article. I don't agree with the "tertiary" source stuff, that is ridiculous. His birth certificate should suffice in stating he is biracial, that is a PRIMARY source. Needless to say, I still disagree with that part of the article, but it is what it is and I apologize for wasting your time. ( Jumacdon ( talk) 05:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
In an ideal world, yes, that would be great. NOT the world we live in...besides, once it has been made a big deal about, it is in the public realm of debate. Regardless, is there something wrong with people of different races being together? It sure seems like this society does not embrace it. ( Jumacdon ( talk) 05:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)) |
My suggestion for the main article: The United States federal government entered a shutdown on October 1, 2013, suspending services deemed "non-essential" by the Antideficiency Act. (ref. http://reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/usa-fiscal-courts-idUSL1N0HQ2AK20130930 ) During the shutdown, most "non-essential" government employees are furloughed. This results in approximately 800,000 public servants being put on indefinite unpaid leave beginning October 1.(ref. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/politics/federal-agencies-lay-out-contingency-plans-for-possible-shutdown.html?_r=0) The White House estimates that a one-week shutdown could cost the US economy $10 billion.(ref. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/30/heres-how-government-shutdown-hurts-american-people) "A shutdown", President Barack Obama stated, "will have a very real economic impact on real people, right away." (ref. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-sept-30-remarks-on-looming-government-shutdown/2013/09/30/87437ea6-2a10-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html )
As this event is quite important and significant it should be mentioned in the article. 91.83.4.198 ( talk) 22:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Article of president without views of energy in the United States is in my opinion not complete. It will influence the future of mankind. Keystone XL pipeline was actual. [1] I can make the issue more complete with the arguments of the Petroleum exploration in the Arctic. Watti Renew ( talk) 16:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Barack Soetero has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 ( talk) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm really wondering why you archived the previous page, why archive 78 is so short. My only guess is that the real reson is the unpleasant topic about the Government shutdown. Please keep wikipedia policy and standard rules, just checked the previous archived talk pages here and every one of them was much longer. Moreover what I have found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page this says that: "The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB or has more than 10 main topics." We were very far from these points, only 1 main topic (about government shutdown), and its size was 4560 bytes, so less than 5 KB (or 9494 bytes if we count the closed topic also, but in this case also we would be still under 10 KB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.204.99 ( talk) 08:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
71.40.207.2 posted this comment on 16 October 2012 ( view all feedback).
I was very dissapointed when I looked at the personal information box and realized it didn't say his salary. My friends and I are very curious and want to fix this.
Any thoughts?
Industrialisation ( talk) 01:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=President_of_the_United_States#Compensation
WP:DNFTT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Watch and read the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10395183/Barack-Obama-catches-fainting-pregnant-woman-during-Obamacare-speech.html I would say this is significant, historical event. Should be included in the main article, embed the video also! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.138.148 ( talk) 17:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
WP:NOTAFORUM :) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In one section of this article, reference is made to the fact that Mr. Obama publicly supports same-sex marriage. In another section, the article states that he claims to be a devout Christian. This is contradictory. One cannot be a devout Christian and support same sex marriage; devout Christians follow the Bible, and the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin. Please change one of these statements. 173.49.201.12 ( talk) 01:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Generalisations of a religious bigot countered by generalisations that make no distinction of Old and New Testament. Classy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 ( talk) 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
Barak Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that does not constitute he is an African American. If this article is using African American to distinguish skin color, then he is black. Referring to him as an African American has no factual base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.83.69 ( talk) 14:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The article's introduction calls Barack Obama "the first African American to hold the office [of President of the United States]. Yet his mother was white, so he is half-African American, often colloquially referred to as "mixed," "mixed-race," or in some places (though many consider the term obsolete for reasons of political correctness) "Mulatto". I propose that the introduction should describe him as the first "half black" or "half African American" president (allegations about Warren G. Harding notwithstanding). 207.7.105.10 ( talk) 18:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)NZ
Forgive me if this has already been discussed in the archives, but didn't Obama oppose the individual mandate during his presidential campaign, or at least semi-oppose it? This seems highly notable. Perhaps someone with more knowledge and interest in the subject can address it. OckRaz mentioned it in PPACA; I reverted because it seemed out of place, but it would seem to belong somewhere in Barack Obama. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Obama saved Gotham city with the help of Batman and Batkid. ref. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PV36IRKD90 and http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-batkid-san-francisco-20131115,0,4450811.story#axzz2kpwPEzrV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.133.133 ( talk) 19:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Obama Senior is said to have "remarried". The article does not say how often he remarried. He seems to have allegedly remarried about five times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.222.5 ( talk) 11:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Re [6]: "At the same time, Herren tracked down the 1692 baptism certificate for one Hans Gutknecht – Obama’s seventh-great grandfather on his mother’s side." - I don't think we're including every single country Obama's ancestors were born in. -- NeilN talk to me 17:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The box on this page is now nearly ~2 years old. I guess it just means "This is when the article was FA" status, but why it hasn't been updated since I have no idea. -- Somchai Sun ( talk) 17:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a Request for Comment at Talk:Browning Citori#RfC: Obama skeet photo staged? The question under discussion is: "The article contains a photo of President Obama firing a shotgun while shooting skeet. Should the caption say that the photo was staged or otherwise faked?" Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 20:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The RfC has been closed, so we're good to go. Thanks to those who participated. — Mudwater ( Talk) 00:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This article hardly says a lick about the people who died in Benghazi because of him. Someone please expand on this greatly. This is all over the news. There's only one sentence about Obamacare, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.18.176.3 ( talk) 01:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to change Barrack Obamas photo to a more sophisticated one.
ABloodyTruth ( talk) 05:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
proposal has not gained consensus; further discussion appears to be unproductive |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article, as it currently stands, overlooks two points about Obama's parents' marriage that are significant and notable: - They were married 6 months before he was born, indicating that the pregnancy was several months along at the time of the event, My effort toward a fix has been repeatedly reverted, with one reason presented being, "Wedlock was a big deal back at the time, sure, but not now in the 21st century". I see this as a mistake. Facts need to be placed into historical context for them to convey full meaning. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states at the time of his birth, and was not made legal until he was about to start 1st grade. This article has no mention of the word "interracial", let alone link to an article on the topic. Both points are significant factors in his parents' relationship, and this article will be improved by adding specific mention of these two facts. As it stands now, both facts can be derived from info that is given (dates and ancestry). But leaving out specific mention creates a vacuum that is akin to having the article not mention that Obama is the first black president, and then justifying such omission by saying something like, "this is the 21st century, and race isn't important". By leaving out these two points, we are failing to give proper context.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 02:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposed edit:
Current edit:
For anyone who doesn't like hearing this from me, you can listen to Barack Obama himself discussing the importance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3nRBwlcE-0&t=11s
Notice also that the year he first gives for his parents' marriage is 1960, when it can be expected that a lawyer with his level of intelligence would be perfectly aware that his parents got married in the same year that he was born in. While it is not our place to delve into the reasons why he did this, it is certainly our job to communicate the straight fact that he was born six months after his parents got married.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 08:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
How Obama Made It?: A Layman's Guide, by Young Sop Ahn
A comparison of John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama, by Natascha Drews
The Obama Question: A Progressive Perspective, by Gary Dorrien
Barack Obama in Hawai'i and Indonesia: The Making of a Global President, by Dinesh Sharma
That last one give a reference of Obama himself, and here is that exact quote from the original: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, by Barack Obama
Barack Obama writes a book about his life, and in choosing the title he picks "...A Story of Race...", and you all freak out when I suggest inserting the word interracial as a single adjective to help describe his parents' marriage. There are a wealth of books written about Barack Obama, and the issues I have pointed to are addressed by a wealth of those book authors. Yet people here freak out as though I am making some crazed push into uncharted territory. Ok, let's say that no one here likes to read books. Just take a look at this webpage from Biography.com: http://www.biography.com/people/ann-dunham-434238 The very first sentence is:
There are plenty other references available. I will go out on a limb with an estimate of hundreds. But so long as editors here prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand, there won't be a very bright outlook for an informed consensus on this.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 23:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I am astounded by the level of willful ignorance expressed by the vocal majority here. No biographical significance to Barack Obama? When he tells you in his own words of the significance? When he has written a book of his life and the title itself focuses on the significance? Are any of you bothering to read the quotes provided? Barack Obama himself is telling us that there was fear that his mother was going to be murdered - have her head chopped off - and he would be taken away. Yeah, not much impact on his life there. All of the authors quoted above are writing about Barack Obama's life and they all are communicating the significance. I spent 10 seconds doing a google search, and just presented the first four hits. The question has become, How deeply do we want to bury our heads in the sand here? Take
JoeSperrazza's reply, for instance: "I've not yet seen ... references to reliable sources noting the timing of their marriage..." One explanation, Joe, might be that you poked your eyes out before posting that reply. Here's what you are choosing to ignore: From 1st book cited- "at the time of their wedding, Ann Dunham was already three months pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr." If I had the technology, I would post these quotes in Braille, because there appears to be a blatant aversion to so much as a visual scan of the printed word here in this forum amongst those willing to speak up on this. You all are certainly free to continue to ignore everything I've provided, but it is perfectly clear what is important to all of these authors when writing about Barack Obama, and it is perfectly clear to me what belongs in this Wikipedia article. I'll highlight one more quote:
At the time I had written that, I was not aware of the depth that this forum was capable of, but now that has become quite clear. I am not so much disappointed with the editors who have expressed their choice to ignore the wealth of info provided. My deepest disappointment is with the untold numbers of editors who are sitting back and choosing to remain silent on this. The racial aspect of Obama's parents' marriage isn't important enough to mention here? Nelson Mandela's body isn't turning in his grave, because it hasn't even been buried yet.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 22:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
New source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7An5LPXjOa4&t=2m40s
The constraints of a news report are often a lot tighter than what Wikipedia editors face, and in this short NBC News report lasting only a few minutes, this point is highlighted not only a single time, but twice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7An5LPXjOa4&t=30s (same video)
The racial aspect of the marriage isn't worth mentioning? To NBC News it was worth mentioning TWICE within the span of two minutes in a single short report - once from Obama's own mouth. This was in 2008, discussing his qualifications to become president, and the importance of his upbringing toward that end.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 09:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Another video interviewing Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mX_j89SoSQ&t=3m19s
Two things to note: So clearly ABC News belongs to the same camp as NBC News (report posted above) regarding the importance of this issue, along with the wealth of authors quoted here. And as with NBC, this ABC report also makes multiple mention within the same report as to the importance of Obama's interracial roots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mX_j89SoSQ&t=7m53s (same video)
All of these sources point to a conclusion that we need to make it part of the Wikipedia story that we are choosing to present about him. This particular aspect can be fixed by inserting the single word " interracial". (Ok, y'all can freak out now about how adding these 11 letters will destroy the article.)-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 10:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Earlier in this section, the text from the biography.com webpage was quoted. Well let's have a look at what their video program presented:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89vsCdn-_0&t=4m27s
That quote was from a program that fills an hour long tv spot. A common rebuttal here has become whether or not such info needs to be edited into a concise summary of Barack Obama. To help gain that perspective, rewind this exact same program to the very beginning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l89vsCdn-_0&t=14s
Biography.com lets you scratch their surface where after all of 14 seconds they start into a summary of the interracial nature of Obama's upbringing. That's not 14 seconds into their program even. That's just the intro to their program.-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 20:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
Tonight I am deciding to take a break from posting about Barack Obama. I will have a look back here after a week has past to see what has developed. Curiously, there are people here who see me to be obsessive. One simple way to prove this to myself is to step back and stay quiet. But the bigger reason for my decision is because of the central position of the WPolicy quote that's been posted tonight - a direct quote from WP:DUE. There is no shortage of people here who appear to be passionate about the view that adding a short and simple mention of these facts would not be an improvement to this article. Yet the wealth of sources posted here (read 'all') support the understanding that the proposal will improve the article. One week seems to be plenty of time for anyone who cares to provide support for such a position to post it here. I will return to see how things develop, and then may take appropriate action in line with Wikipedia policy (or I may return to find that you all have done that yourselves).-- Tdadamemd ( talk) 06:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC) |
date of birth 1095 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.12.234.4 ( talk) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Close per WP:TPNO "The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This has been a sad week in the Wikipedia community. Here on this page a major argument got cleanly deleted as though the facts it presented had never been posted, and then another person came along and unilaterally declared the active discussion closed, compressing it with an archive tag. But that isn't the sad part. People do messed up things all the time. The sad part is that each and every person who saw what had happened just stood by and didn't do anything about it. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is very sad to see signs of it becoming a fascism. The only tool these active editors are missing is the power to delete change history. Me imagining that all of the bystanders would like to give it to them makes me shudder. Each and every one of you have tacitly cast your votes.
Acroterion, your vote was active - demonstrating that you will revert a small vandalism, yet stand by the larger destructive action. So concurrently, there is a small part of me that wants to say thank you, while a much larger part is wondering... "What The Fox?!"
|
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 know that "socialism" is equivalent to "communism" in the U.S., but by international standards, any left-leaning politician is a socialist. I've seen that just about every other even nominally liberal politician is part of this wikiproject, so I ask: if Tony Blair (hardly a far-left politician) is part of WikiProject Socialism, then why should Obama be excluded? 78.70.153.159 ( talk) 22:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Close - not appropriate for this article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Allowing_old_discussions_to_be_rehashed_on_purpose_to_increase_editor_participation.3F_.28So_newcomers_can_get_a_sense_of_inclusiveness.29 I've looked at an interesting forum post from a user who argued that by not allowing old discussions to be rehashed (I used Barack Obama as an example) (and I think without new evidence would apply here!): "They are bored and unable to pay attention and unable to have the same discussions--which made the people talking a cohesive group--with newcomers so no one feels like they belong." and he argues that's how many Usenet groups declined into being "stale and intolerant" Would anyone mind taking a look? WhisperToMe ( talk) 03:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
|
User making assertions blocked for abuse of multiple accounts |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Any assertion that someone who has the ability to grant pardons, secretly if need be, is the product of bigamy or statutory rape would need to be sourced to at least one WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed academic legal journal article with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Whether Obama is a "bastard" or not is impossible to source because illegitimacy law was abolished by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, without any provisions for grandfathering, so to speak. If there are no such sources forthcoming in the next few days, I propose that this section be archived as a de facto public political figure character assasination attempt. EllenCT ( talk) 14:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Should there be an addition to the Domestic Policy section to cover "Civil Liberties" or "Privacy Rights." It seems like the NSA thing is worth mentioning when discussing his presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubintheclub ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Closed. See FAQ for details. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the first sentence it says that Obama is a Christian. We need to change this to "Obama says he is a Christian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:22FF:3CF0:0:0:0:30 ( talk) 22:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
|
During the past four to five weeks the emerging news coverage of President Obama's response to the foreign policy issue of tensions in the Ukraine and Crimea have received daily coverage in the mainstream press yet no subsection on this issue is present on the Wikipedia page for President Obama. Two editors have reverted the attempt to present this as a short one paragraph subsection oriented to the Washington Post quotes in an editorial report given over last week-end, both on the President's page here and at the John Kerry page. The issue has been covered daily by NY Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe for the last month and some short version of the president's position and comments would appear to be notable for inclusion. A short though expanded two-paragraph version of the previous version is presented here for comment, since the one-paragraph version described above was not seen as sufficient and Washington Post coverage alone was remarked upon as being insufficient by editors.
At present two editors seem to support the second paragraph alone (see John Kerry page), while two seem to oppose the second paragraph alone, therefore the first paragraph is added here as clarification of this Presidential foreign policy issue which has been notable in the mainstream press on a daily basis for several weeks. This topic is presently fully absent from the Barack Obama page. This short subsection was expanded with further cites after the request of another editor for more sources. The current Page for the President already covers several open-ended issues at various stages of development both early and late. This short subsection contains notable information in the mainstream press and is useful for inclusion on the Barack Obama page. FelixRosch ( talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama-ism, for those here that may not have seen it, given the odd hyphenation. I stumbled across it by sheer chance today. Tarc ( talk) 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ #2 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why do you call Barrack Obama II the first "African American" or "Black" President? A person born in America is American. An "African American" describes a person born in Africa who becomes an American citizen. His mother was a "White" American of (partly)European descent. Commonly referred to as "White" or "Caucasian." Obama is of mixed race ancestry. According to the American Heritage College dictionary, a person born of one Black and one White parent is a Mulatto, a rarely used term but more accurate. Respecting Obama's diverse racial heritage is correct and more inclusive. Christosveritaseternum ( talk) 14:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Chistosveritaseternum 3/16/14
|
Hi! On March 4, 2014, Obama submitted his fiscal year 2015 budget request to Congress. I've started an article about it - President Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal. I was hoping other editors would be interested in improving the page and wanted to invite you to do so. I was also hoping to get other editors' input on how to insert a link or two to the article on this page, possibly in the section about economic policy? It could be something simple like:
Or longer with more information about what is in the proposal (there is a ton of relevant material that could be used), like:
As I said, there is a lot of material - defense spending, taxes, education, etc - that could be included. Does anyone have any comments on what they think this should say or where in the article it should appear? Thanks! HistoricMN44 ( talk) 17:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Before someone ends up blocked for WP:3RR... Shouldn't the alt text at least identify Obama by name? -- NeilN talk to me 19:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the sentence that says: "According to November 2013 polls, Obama's average approval rating fell to 41%, thus setting a new low for the president." This seems a bit out of place the way it is in this section. Wouldn't it make more sense to put this right after the sentence talking about his poll numbers after his second inauguration? The rest of the section details his image in foreign countries, so the sentence seems kind of wonky the way it is now. Twyfan714 ( talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Barack Obama was born the year of the first freedom ride and was two years old when Martin Luther King gave his I have a dream speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.48.129 ( talk) 09:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The procedure for tagging an article with "pov" or whatever has, IMO, been followed correctly; a user brings a concern to the talk page and tags the section or article as warranted. What's bad is either "drive-by tagging" (no discussion) or "badges of shame" (tags left for months). Neither has happened here, so just discuss above and carry on, pls. Tarc ( talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (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.
Obama is bi-racial or mixed race. He is neither from Africa nor is he black or white.
Correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.252.198 ( talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
In the previous thread, there was a proposal agreed upon by at least two people to remove this section entirely, on the grounds that it consists entirely of cherry-picked polls, and polls are difficult to represent fairly in a WP:NPOV way. Do we have consensus on this proposal? TBSchemer ( talk) 04:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I will welcome input from other editors on how to make this section WP:NPOV. Simply, please refrain from WP:PERSONAL attacks. Don't throw around accusations of racism. TBSchemer ( talk) 18:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems like the consensus position is to remove this section. I have made the change. TBSchemer ( talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts:
Greetings from Spain!!!. Could anyone put in Wiki Commons photo of President Obama with the Prime Minister of my country, Mariano Rajoy? Thank you. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/january-2014-photo-day -- Campeones 2008 ( talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I changed "President" to "president" in the opening sentence "Barack Hussein Obama II ( /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current president of the United States, and the first African American to hold the office." My edit summary mentioned the WP:JOBTITLES example of "...sworn in as the 38th president of the United States..." The change was reverted, capitalizing President, with the edit summary: "That is a reference to Obama being the current occupant of the office of President of the United States."
While the second part of the sentence ("the first African American to hold the office") refers to the office, the first part refers to the job, as evidenced by the adjectives "44th and current". There has only been one office of the President of the United States, which is capitalized, while there have been many presidents of the United States, including the 44th and current one, President Obama. (Just to be clear, I mean political office, not a physical office). WP:JOBTITLES, part of MOS:CAPS, gives the similar usage of "the 38th president of the United States". It's also in keeping with the style of major US newspapers (e.g., NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, Washington Post). It's a bit confusing, because it varies on usage: "Barrack Obama is the president of the United States", "Barrack Obama holds the office of President of the United States", "She introduced President of the United States Barrack Obama". I'd suggest using lower case, in keeping with MOS:CAPS guidelines.
Agyle ( talk) 04:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Newspaper | Lowercase/ Uppercase |
---|---|
New York Times | 9 lc, 0 UC |
Los Angeles Times | 10 lc, 0 UC |
USA Today | 10 lc, 0 UC |
Washington Post | 2 lc, 0 UC |
Wallstreet Journal | 8 lc, 0 UC |
Chicago Tribune | 10 lc, 0 UC |
Toronto Star (Can.) | 7 lc, 3 UC |
Guardian (UK) | 9 lc, 0 UC |
Daily Telegraph (UK) | 3 lc, 7 UC |
Herald Sun (Aus.) | 4 lc, 6 UC |
Times of India (India) | 7 lc, 1 UC |
Irish Independent (R. of I.) | 3 lc, 7 UC |
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
May I edit the page because the Thai Wikipedia says it's a featured article. 68.5.244.183 ( talk) 19:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the link Chicago-style politics to the "See also" section at the end of the article, due to Obama being involved in Chicago politics and the apt comparison of him to the style. -- 166.205.68.28 ( talk) 20:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Source http://www.nationalreview.com/article/349610/obamas-chicago-way-john-fund -- 166.205.68.28 ( talk) 20:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
In the University of Chicago Law School and civil rights attorney subsection there is an image that is too big. The image partially overlaps with the subsection's title. The source code for the image is not within the subsection. The image should be decreased in size or moved. SMP0328. ( talk) 01:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I got rid of this addition because of the use of weasel words ("many"). I'm not saying the addition is unwanted, but it would certainly need to be rewritten and discussed on this talk page before being added back. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Obama's former membership of the New Party is a fact confirmed by primary evidence that is acknowledged by two reputable conservative sources ( The American Spectator and National Review), a reputable moderate source who is often labeled a liberal ( Ben Smith at BuzzFeed), and a reputable libertarian source ( Reason).
I would like to know what your disagreement actually is. Accusing someone of using a 'talking point' is itself a talking point, ironically.
Is your disagreement based on:
1. a belief that none of those sources is reputable? 2. a belief that the claim isn't true? 3. a belief that the information isn't important enough for Wikipedia?
If point 1, then I point out that all four of those sources are used by a wide range of Wikipedia articles without any controversy. They are widely regarded as legitimate sources of information by the users of Wikipedia and by the rest of the media.
If point 2, then I ask, why do you think so, considering that two reputable conservative sources, one reputable liberal/moderate source, and one reputable libertarian source think otherwise? Only two of those sources can be considered 'right-wing'.
If point 3, I point out that many Wikipedia articles on politicians contain information about previous memberships of political parties. Examples include Ronald Reagan and John Reid. In fact, even Wikipedia articles on non-politicians often contain such information, for example Christopher Hitchens.
Renren8123 ( talk) 02:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tvoz: “Even one of your own sources, Ben Smith, quotes the founder of the party as saying they didn't have members - putting this in the infobox suggests otherwise.” Read the last update in the Smith article: “UPDATE: Richmond sends over a New Party page from 1997 that makes pretty clear that they saw themselves at the time as having members: The New Party is run by dues-paying members, who are organized into chapters. The national organization provides support for chapter growth and coordination. Every member gets one vote.”
In Smith’s own words, it’s now “pretty clear” that they did have members.
“The most that might be accurate is that he once received their endorsement, for his State Senate run, which is trivial regarding his whole life, and a world apart from this being his "former" political party.” Why are you personally judging what might be accurate?
“I'll be glad to amend that to "fringe talking point"”. You didn’t catch my point that calling something a ‘talking point’ is itself a talking point. And in what universe are The American Spectator, National Review, BuzzFeed and Reason "fringe"?
“a newer, astounding piece in reason.com that compares Bill de Blasio and Obama including such bon mots as "Both Obama and de Blasio are married to black women they met at work."” What’s your point?
“I'm surprised Benghazi isn't and Obamacare aren't mentioned.” Again, I don’t see your point.
“No, this New Party nonsense is neither accurate nor appropriate for this article.” Again, who are you to judge whether it’s accurate? And if previous memberships of political parties are not "appropriate" information, then why is such information mentioned in many Wikipedia articles on politicians and even some non-politicians, as I pointed out?
Johnuniq: “What secondary source has written an analysis of these claims and their significance?” Those four sources are secondary sources, and the BuzzFeed writer was an initially skeptical source who was persuaded by the evidence. Renren8123 ( talk) 04:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tvoz: “Actually that first part was me, not Johnuniq”. Noted and duly amended.
“Smith's article clearly states the opposite of what Kurtz was alleging: he says that the founder of the New Party, Joel Rogers, reiterated that there weren't members”. Yes, that is what Smith says that Rogers said. Clearly, Smith himself does not agree with Rogers. Smith’s disagreement with Rogers is explicit: “UPDATE: Richmond sends over a New Party page from 1997 that makes pretty clear that they saw themselves at the time as having members”. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Therefore it’s not for us to doubt Smith.
“And Smith did not say that he received any documentation to verify that Obama was a member”. I never claimed that Smith had said that he had “received any documentation”. Smith says that Kurtz “yesterday turned up something that appears to contradict claims from Obama and others that he’d never been a member of something called the New Party”. Smith reports Rogers as having contradicted Kurtz's claims, but Smith himself never vouches for Rogers’s denials. Just look at the language: “he also said”, “Rogers stuck by”, “Rogers added” etc. The most that Smith is willing to concede is the lack of clarity about “what membership required or entailed”, though that doubt too is somewhat lifted with the final update. Smith does not challenge the existence of membership or Obama’s status as a member.
“So your using this as confirmation that this dubious point belongs in the infobox”. Well, it doesn’t have to belong there, but it should be somewhere in the article. But, if it’s to appear in the main text, it’ll take a full sentence, rather than the two words that I contributed.
“Hillary a Goldwater youth”. Do you know how many citations there are in Hillary Clinton’s Wikipedia article to support the assertion that she supported Barry Goldwater? Just one: a book written by a Goldwater Republican in 2006 (not exactly an unbiased source surely!) that can’t be accessed by me or, I presume, by you either. Yet, I provide four online citations from reputable sources, two conservative, one libertarian and one moderate/liberal, and yet that’s just dismissed. Also, you mentioned being ‘appropriate’. Why is it appropriate to mention the political affiliations that Clinton held when she wasn’t even an adult yet, while it’s allegedly inappropriate to mention the political affiliations that Obama held when he was not only an adult but a politician too? That’s just nonsensical, especially when an entire paragraph is dedicated to Clinton’s childhood politics, whereas I intended to add merely literally two words on the matter of Obama’s former adult, professional politics.
“As for why I am making a judgment about what's appropriate, that's what editors do here.” That’s another straw man. I never claimed you couldn’t make judgments about what’s appropriate. I said you can’t make judgments about what’s accurate: that would be original research on your part. As for what’s appropriate, of course you can make the judgment, but Wikipedia should be consistent. I have given you examples, and you yourself have mentioned examples, where politicians’ and even non-politicians' previous political affiliations are mentioned. Why should Obama be an exception to this?
“There are lots of sources that repeat the claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii too.” Not reputable ones, though. As I said, The American Spectator, National Review, BuzzFeed and Reason are widely cited in many Wikipedia articles.
“it is a straight-up opinion piece, no sources to verify his claim that "documents indicate" that Obama joined the party, and therefore not a reasonable source to be taken seriously for this "fact"”. That’s another judgment by you of accuracy. Many Wikipedia articles cite many opinion pieces.
“This New Party Stanley Kurtz National Review talking point is right up there with whether Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya who foisted death panels on an unsuspecting public while lying about what really went on in Benghazi.” That’s just another straw-man argument.
“as determined by consensus”. The consensus is that information on political affiliations can go into an article, even if the subject is not a politician and even if those affiliations were held during childhood, and furthermore an entire paragraph can be included on the matter, even if there are only one or two citations and even if such citations are from very political sources that can’t be easily accessed. You agree with that, and yet you want such a strong exception for Obama that not even literally just two words on his previous political affiliation as an adult and a politician can be included, even though there are four easily-accessible citations from a politically diverse range of reputable sources. Renren8123 ( talk) 09:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Johnuniq: "I am not going to enter into a forum debate". OK, no problem. Why are you telling me that, though? Why not just stay silent, if that is what you wish to do? I repeat the fact that Smith does not deny the existence of a party membership or Obama's status as a party member. In fact, Smith says, "According to the minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting, which Kurtz found in an ACORN archive: Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party". Once again, I point out the contrast with Smith's reporting of Rogers's view, for which Smith does not vouch at all: “he also said”, “Rogers stuck by what he had told me”, “Rogers added” etc. Renren8123 ( talk) 11:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tarc: "Obama received an endorsement". The evidence that says he was endorsed also says that he was a member. "a minor state party". The party existed in mutiple states. "Their endorsement is trivial". I've addressed this point already. Please read my comments before replying. To repeat, how is it so trivial that it does not warrant literally just two words in what is a very extensive article, whereas Hillary Clinton's childhood political opinions warrant an entire paragraph in her article? "a speck of history unduly magnified by a select group of right-wing activists, nothing more than that". Tell that to Ben Smith and Reason, neither of whom can be described as "right-wing", but again I've addressed this point already. "it is unimportant to the wider political world". Is that why the moderate/liberal editor-in-chief of a major news website himself covered it? Renren8123 ( talk) 16:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikidemon: "Trivial factoid, a distorted version of which became a minor partisan campaign smear, not significant enough for the article". Once again, I request that commenters read before they reply. "shoehorning it in would violate NPOV". Again, I've addressed this point. But, I'll tell you what definitely does not constitute a NPOV: comments like "Overall, the country is clearly in stronger shape now than when Obama took office". It's OK to have an opinion, but clearly some of the people replying to me are being influenced by their biases, which is not OK. I find it rather worrying that contributors to, and administrators of, an encyclopedia feel no pressure even to pretend to be neutral! Renren8123 ( talk) 17:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Tarc: "You don't need to quote little bits and pieces of what the other editors writes." If I don't, it's not necessarily clear which particular statement I'm replying to. That is the standard, accepted method of argument and rebuttal. I don't intend it to be insulting, if that's what you're implying. "it is a minor party". Past political affiliations to minor parties are often mentioned on the Wikipedia pages of politicians and even non-politicians, as I've already said. In fact, I gave some examples: Christopher Hitchens, John Reid. "unremarkable save for being a talking point for the Drudge Reports of the country". As I said, I provided four reputable sources, two of which are decidedly not right-wing. "I won't be appearing in this article at any time, I am fairly comfortable in predicting." Perhaps you are right, but that's not an argument for why it shouldn't, and it's not something that any of us should be proud of if we want Wikipedia to be a legitimate encyclopedia and not a patchwork of fiefdoms overseen by people with strong and unhidden biases. Renren8123 ( talk) 17:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
A random (unsolicited) endorsement from the many he received in his senate campaign is not notable (certainly not here, on his main article; but it probably isn't noteworthy even on his Senate article, which doesn't list any other endorsements beyond the most politically significant one.) Additionally, the implication that he was an actual member of the party (as opposed to being endorsed by them) is not backed up by any evidence or even asserted by any reputable sources; the New Party was a party that attempted to gain ground through "fusion" endorsements (where they would endorse big-ticket candidates and people could vote for this candidate through them, allowing the party to gain followers and power without splitting the vote -- something that is common in eg. New York with the Working Families Party.) This means that their endorsement is insignificant and says nothing about Obama; they would have endorsed any candidate who got the nomination, because their strategy was to encourage voters to support the Democratic candidate (whoever it was) on their party line rather than on the Democratic line. Read their article for details; the point is, their endorsement was not significant to Barack Obama and therefore doesn't belong on this article. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
My Internet isn't as slow as some people's, but not as fast as others. Making two minor edits takes way longer than it should. It's a few bytes shorter, but this thing really needs a concerted weight-loss effort. I'll leave it to those with the slower and faster connections to be motivated and able enough, respectively. Yes, you can! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has long outlive any usefulness it may have had. (non-admin closure)
Calidum Go Bruins! 01:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|
---|
I just spent an hour skimming the Wiki articles of each president the US has had. These articles typically refer to actions, responses, and policies of the president, along with a description of how these events were received by the public, and how the president's popularity was affected. Notably, the article on Barack Obama is missing any information about the critical response many of his actions have received. This article reads like a campaign website, listing all of his "achievements" along with far too many legislative details, with little information about the history of how these things happened, or what resulted from them. Of note, the section on the 2010 midterms is a single sentence, and omits any mention of WHY Obama was so unpopular in 2010, and about how his 2010 legislative policies were received. The section on the 2012 elections omits any mention of HOW he won the election, or what sort of campaign message he was leveling against his opponent. The section on "health care reform" mentions far too many legislative details (that could easily be gleaned by reading the page on PPACA), while omitting any mention of what sort of criticisms were leveled against the policy, how it has affected Obama's popularity, or how the implementation of the new health care system was handled. Furthermore, there is no mention of the IRS targeting scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the many court cases against Obama's executive overreach, the fact that Obama was held in contempt by a federal court, the fact that Obama created the largest and most intrusive domestic surveillance operation in human history, his racially-motivated comments and policies, or the fact that he has been so widely and openly criticized as a totalitarian, a socialist, a fascist, and other labels for authoritarian philosophies. These types of facts are a major focus of the articles for previous presidents, and were certainly a dominant component of the page on George W. Bush during his presidency. The level of president-saluting sterilization in this article is positively Orwellian. TBSchemer ( talk) 00:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC) As an example of this Orwellian cleansing, I included a series of polls showing that Obama is "the most divisive and polarizing president in history" in the first-term legacy section, and the change was rapidly reverted by Tarc. This leaves the section as a paragraph of praise from academics, with little general-public polling data. The reversion can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Barack_Obama&diff=603081323&oldid=603080058 TBSchemer ( talk) 01:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
So does anyone here have an interest in seeing this article become more of a historical account and less of a campaign page, or am I the only one? TBSchemer ( talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
As a new wikipedia member and as someone who unfortunately read this chat, I can see very clearly that your ideology has compromised your ability to edit, TBSchemer. 1st Corinthians 11:9 ( talk) 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The POV problems with this article are serious and real. If any editors are interested in having a truly civil discussion about the POV problems with this article, please do so here, and refrain from personal attacks. WP:PERSONAL TBSchemer ( talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Just my two cents: If George W. Bush can have, "Some pundits labeled Bush 'the worst president ever'" in his article without there being much of a fuss, then Obama should at least have more info on criticism. Either that, or if people don't want to include criticism (which it seems like most people here are wanting) then that should be taken out of Bush's article. My point is that Wikipedia should not have a bias on either side, and we need a balancing of this kind of thing in order to ensure that. Having a political debate on this talk page doesn't solve anything. You may agree or disagree with the criticism leveled at Obama, but that's no reason to keep it out. The sentence could say, "Obama's critics assert...yada yada yada" to be clear that they are others' opinions. Again that's just my opinion. Oh and one more thing: please let's try and be civil to one another. Resorting to personal attacks does nothing but hurt people's feelings. Twyfan714 ( talk) 00:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
102 years ago, more than 1,500 people died when the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg and sank, and yet the liberal media have never held President Obama accountable for this failure of leadership! -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A redirect, Obama, needs rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:
#REDIRECT [[Barack Obama]] {{R from surname}} [[Category:Protected redirects]]
#REDIRECT [[Barack Obama]] {{Redr|hatnote|from surname|p2=nocat|from incomplete name|printworthy|protected}}
Template Redr is an alias for the {{
This is a redirect}} template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. "Hatnote" is an alias for {{
R mentioned in hatnote}}; the p#
parameter is used to suppress
Category:Surnames per
this discussion. Thank you in advance! –
Paine Ellsworth
CLIMAX! 02:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of ~95 paragraphs in this article, around 40 begin with dates:
Sometimes it happens several paragraphs in a row. This isn't professional writing. — Designate ( talk) 14:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The G7 is currently meeting in Europe and Obama has issued his strongest foreign policy statement against Putin to date. Obama was asked to voice an international consensus opinion of the seven participating nations which was reported in the NY Times on this date as shown below. Is there any merit or explanation as to why the current page does not having a G7/G8 subsection since Obama has been and continues to be a de facto center of these meetings and a central international voice for expressing their consensus views. Could someone take a look at the quote included below (abridged) to make a comment on a possible G7/G8 subsection on this Page possibly under "Foreign Policy".
This summarizes Obama's position from over the last six months on Putin as well. However, it is the G7/G8 section which appears missing on this wikipedia Page as a recurrent event for Obama during his entire presidency. Is anything of this G7/G8 history for Obama something to consider for the Obama Page. FelixRosch ( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
[7] It is said that he wanted to quit smoking, but it is still an impertinent behavior. -- Ich bin nicht dein Kollegah ( talk) 04:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Her name is Sasha and not Natasha.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama
Prissy1213 ( talk) 16:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
In line with Hillary Rodham Clinton-- 117.207.123.162 ( talk) 10:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents, Siena Research Institute, July 1, 2010
should be changed to
Rushmore Plus One; FDR joins Mountainside Figures Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln as Top Presidents, Siena Research Institute, July 1, 2010
to fix the link. Tarc ( talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (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.
Correction to article submission: Obama wasn't born in Honolulu, Hawaii; he had his records sealed up so that no one could see his true country of origin. This issue needs to be addressed on the article page instead of a false location of birth being posted instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.142.6 ( talk) 16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
A Quinnipiac University poll has found that Barack Obama is considered to be the worst president since World War II.
Cites:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/02/Obama-Worst-President-World-War-II-Poll
DeanSoCal ( talk) 01:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It should include that he's the worst president since WW2. I love how Wiki protects Obama and i see no updates on his IRS, NSA, ACA Benghazi and other scandals? I read on Mitt's page that he use to be out of the state of Mass, but how about we write on how many golf trips, fund raisers and that 100 million dollar vacation Obama takes? How about all the corruption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7700:3A3:7DF6:E28F:E993:D19B ( talk) 18:51, 9 July 2014 (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.
The first sentence of the lead describes Obama as both ‘the 44th and current President of the United States’ and ‘the first African American to hold the office’. Should this latter description be moved elsewhere in the lead so that the first sentence focuses solely on Obama’s political position? As a quick comparison, the Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher articles mention their subjects’ social notability (being the first black and first woman leader respectively) in the second sentence, but leave aside the first one to focus on what they achieved, irrespective of race or sex. 86.133.243.146 ( talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you're too lazy to read the FAQ, Supersaiyen312, it says that Wikipedia defines the whole issue of Barack Obama's race by self-identification: Obama says he is African-American. End of story.
I'm completely with Tarc on this. The history of race in America - the continuing history - makes his election and re-election utterly extraordinary, and is absolutely a defining characteristic of his life story, which this article is telling. This is so notable that I believe it is necessary to be in the first sentence, and even if there are subsequent African American presidents in the near future, his being the first will always be a great deal more notable than the fact that he is the first from Hawaii. Tvoz/ talk 04:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tvoz above. The most notable (among other notable things) of the Obama presidency is his election and reelection as an African-American. To contend otherwise is to be (suspiciously) disingenuous. Juan Riley ( talk) 17:23, 4 July 2014 (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.
Where can we add this question to the article? Teetotaler 30 July, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Would this be the appropriate article to mention and/or link the assertions recently added at Cult of personality#United States that the Obama presidency is a cult of personality, or is that information better suited to either the Presidency, or perhaps the Public image, article? 2600:1006:B11F:927A:B945:D20A:9451:85D ( talk) 04:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)