Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 80
![]() | 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 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 |
Benghazi paragraph
Burned itself out. Now just an insult magnet | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
I removed this paragraph about Benghazi! because it was written in a non-neutral way that obviously sought to negatively impact Hillary Clinton in an election. It was constructed around allegations, rather than facts, and referenced by a single Fox News source. I don't object to having the Benghazi attack in the article, but I most strenuously object to how this was put into the article. Going forward, I expect anyone seeking to include this material in the article to first propose a paragraph on this talk page and seek consensus for inclusion. A dim view will be taken to edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Scjessey: " I see little to no evidence that the Benghazi attack was a significant moment in the biography of Barack Obama." - I have to ask; did you perhaps want to re-consider that comment? A United States Ambassador was murdered during his presidency and there was widespread criticism of the government and it's failings leading up to that death. There was widespread media coverage regarding this incident (see: 2012 Benghazi attack) and I would argue that it was a very significant event of Obama's time at the Whitehouse. Furthermore, we don't sanitize articles for the sake of an election. We go by what the sources say, and if they level criticism at Clinton, then we include that. If you have an issue with Fox News, I suggest you take it to WP:RSN, but as of now, it is considered a reliable source. - theWOLFchild 12:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@ScrapIronIV: Someone Boldy added it, so I Reverted it and began a Discussion here. That's how WP:BRD is supposed to work. What you were doing was edit warring, which is what I warned about in my very first comment of the thread. On articles like this, under Arbcom probation, you must seek a consensus for inclusion of contentious material, not the other way around. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
MSGJ has quite rightly applied temporary page protection to guard the article from the edit warring I warned against at the beginning of this thread, but unfortunately that protection has been applied with the disputed material in situ. I will be requesting the removal of the disputed material, so it is important the discussion continues in a respectful manner. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
the disputed contentThe paragraph read;
It's actually not all that wrong. It could've specified that the ambassador and foreign service officer died at the diplomatic mission and the two CIA contractors died at the nearby CIA outpost. It's absolutely correct that both Obama and Clinton received criticism, though going into detail about who did or did not pay attention to warnings and requests regarding security may not be necessary. That said, this is an event where an ambassador was killed representing the country overseas, both a rare and noteworthy event indeed. - theWOLFchild 16:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Display name 99 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Remove disputed paragraph
Please remove the disputed paragraph that was added here while the discussion of whether or not to include contentious material continues above. In its current form, it does not represent a fair summary of the political and biographical ramifications of the 2012 Benghazi attack as it pertains to the subject of this article. Moreover, in what arguably can be considered a violation of WP:BLP, it makes allegations about former Secretary Hillary Clinton (who is not the subject of this article) and does so with a dated source of dubious quality. A fuller justification can be found in an earlier section of this talkpage. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
You have not addressed any of the concerns Wikidemon has illustrated- Um, do you mean the comment where I addressed it on a point. by. point. basis? Relevance. Facts. Sources. What else is there? Everything's covered, it's just that YOUDIDNTHEARIT. - theWOLFchild 02:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary BreakIn response to concerns, I typed the words "Benghazi criticism" into Google Search. I reached [1]] article from ABC News as the 5th option. In addition to having the word "Criticisms" in the title, it also includes that word or some derivative of it 7 times in the body of the article. What more do you need? Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Checking back here to see if any consensus has developed yet, but I can't see any. I've added a low profile maintenance template, to indicate there is some dispute over the inclusion. In the end, if there is no consensus for inclusion it should probably be removed I guess. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Does this satisfy you? Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion after page protection lifted@Wikidemon: - Unbelievable, no sooner does the page lock come off that you rush in to remove the passage. In fact you were sooo hurried that you removed the wrong content! (your preview button doesn't work?). Then you actually went ahead and arbitrarily added your own content? It doesn't work that way and you know it. There is an ongoing discussion here regarding that content, involving multiple editors. You should have proposed your addition here for everyone to decide on. I in fact asked you to propose a change here several times and you flat out refused. What ever changes are made, will be done by consensus, not just whatever you decide on your own. I'm not saying the current passage has to stay the way it is (I've said all along it could use some changes and additional sources), but we will all decide together what changes are made. Seriously, just get with the program already. - theWOLFchild 20:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
− ::'When removing content from a page, it is important to be sure there is consensus to do so. − ::So, regarding the issue of whether or not the paragraph should be in the article as this discussion continues, WP policy is clearly against you. As such, I have reverted your change. Do NOT change it. " − ::Obviously, thewolfchild taken care of the revert. WP policy still states that no removal should take place without consenus. As such, Wikidemon's actions were totally inexcusable. Display name 99 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Neither can you edit war a paragraph out of the article and then claim you need consensus to re-add it. It is entirely inappropriate to pounce on an article the moment a block expires and remove content when there is no consensus to do so. If you, Dave Dial, and Wikidemon can revert anything you want, I don't see why the rest of us cannot. Also, who reverted first? Display name 99 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
RecapJust to recap here, policy is that disputed changes — additions or deletions — should not be made to articles without consensus. A group of editors, some with problematic editing histories arrived a few days ago to try to add a paragraph about the Benghazi attacks, leading to protection of the article. The protecting admin noted that no consensus seems to have emerged, so that the material "should probably be removed".[2] I did so, citing the talk page discussion and the admin's comments.[3] To try to break the logjam, I tried an approach that has sometimes worked to resolve other content disputes I've seen, adding a carefully written neutral, compromise version of the proposed text that incorporates as much of the disputed version as I could, but sticks to the sources and also matches (in this case copies) from more detailed treatment in other Wikipedia articles. I described this in the edit summary as a "trial balloon" that I was floating, [4] and offered to remove it again if there was no consensus on my wording. This immediately drew a scolding revert from one of the editors promoting the paragraph.[5] I followed up by removing the section per my earlier comment[6] and the editor went right back to edit warring[7] and posted the insulting screed at the top of the previous subsection. Bottom line, either we agree on a neutral, acceptable sentence or paragraph to add the Benghazi attacks to the Libya section, or that content stays out until we do. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thewolfchild is right. Wikidemon, based upon your outrageous stubbornness and insistence upon having this article reflect your own personal views, I think it's time we decided to leave. As others have said, it's better to have no Benghazi paragraph at all than some POV-laden piece of garbage. I'll leave things the way they are for now. Display name 99 (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Close?That was certainly weird and unpleasant. Can we mark this thread closed? Better keep an eye out for sockpuppets. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Pres. Obama criticized for attacks on rule of law
This example is but one of many, but is novel & interesting. As noted upthread, criticisms of Pres. Obama are mostly notable for their absence in our article.
Mary Anastasia O'Grady, the WSJ's Latin America correspodent, wrote, in her The Americas wekly column, March 6, 2016, paywalled:
"If elected, Mr. Trump would inherit a country where the rule of law is already under attack by President Obama. Long-winded and ruling by decree whenever Congress—the constitutionally coequal branch of government—does not accommodate him, Mr. Obama is a classic Latin American demagogue."
Context is her criticism of candidate Trump who, she writes, " promises to override institutional inertia and simply decree whatever is on his mind, like a caudillo. This won’t end well." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs) 21:31, 08 March 2016
- Guaranteed this won't go anywhere, particularly as there's no attempt to suggest how to improve the article. And frankly, nobody cares about the views of a conservative libertarian who writes for the Murdoch Street Journal. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Opinions: everyone's got one, but they don't all belong on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Syria, Ukraine and Putin
This article does not contain any relevant information about Obama's Syrian policy. For example https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/
There is still no word about Ukrainian crisis and Obama's attitude to this matter. And the name of the Russian president is mentioned only once.
Greetings from Prague --JéeM84 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- This article is primarily about Barack Obama himself. Perhaps Presidency of Barack Obama is what you are looking for? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the fifth paragraph of the Foreign Policy section the article incorrectly refers to Dmitry Medvedev as the President of Russia, he is in fact the Prime Minister of Russia. Somebody should fix this. 101.190.132.182 (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Dmitry Medvedev was President of the Russian Federation from 2008 to 2012. In 2010 it was the administration of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not done Yes he is currently the Prime Minister of Russia. What the paragraph is talking about though happened in 2010. In 2010 Dmitry Medvedev was the President of Russia. -- GB fan 13:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Obama
I recently added "Mr. Obama" to the hatnote. The change was reverted. The "Mr. Obama" redirect was recently discussed at RfD. The result of the discussion was that it should remain targeted here per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, it is reasonable to add the term to the hatnote because of its ambiguity. Most of the other redirects to this article are generally unambiguous, already covered well by the other two listed, or are typos. Compared to other discussions above about this article, this issue seems rather benign, uncomplicated, and clear per an editing guideline.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The hatnote is already very long, and adding a little-used redirect like "Mr. Obama" will make it overlong with no real benefit. I would imagine the number of readers searching for people by "Mr. [name]" (and similar) would be minuscule. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Intro
"Barack Hussein Obama II is an American politician serving as the 44th President of the United States". Surely he's noted first and foremost for being "the 44th and current President of the United States". Why doesn't the intro say just that, like it used to? 141.6.11.23 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia attempts to standardize such articles, so you will find similar wording in the articles of other politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Actions relating to the presidential election
He's met with Bernie Sanders and talked about Trump multiple times, who has responded to him over and over again. Are those worthy of inclusion somewhere? Informant16 26 March 2016
- No, this is a biography of his whole life - his meetings with Sanders and comments about Trump are not suficiently important to his life to include in his bio. Perhaps in the article about the election, but not here. Tvoz/talk 01:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Home town on infobox
Should the home town (Chicago, Illinois) be included in the infobox? A stupid question, sorry for the trouble I may cause. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure really. I don't see it on the infoboxes of past presidents, and it already shows his Kenwood, Chicago residence. I'd be inclined to say it probably isn't significant enough to include in an already-crowded infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- And then you would have to define "hometown" - the city or town where one was born or grew up; or the place of one's principal residence or the town of one's present fixed residence. So, Honolulu? Chicago? DC? I think we leave it out of the shorthand infobox and let the text explain in prose. But no problem in raising the question! Tvoz/talk 18:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Sourcing Issues
This article needs some attention with online referencing. Quite a few sources are either dead or unable to connect. There is a list of references here that are either dead or have some sort of connectivity issues. Will211|Chatter 03:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016
Useless request that has now descended into comparing the subject to a chimpanzee. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Somethings on this document are incorrect and need to be corrected and I will not go into further details about what is incorrect because I would like to edit this one. :) XLiquidLimex (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Weatherlawyer (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Thumbnail Question
Hi, I've personally got nothing wrong with it (as Obama was and is a terrible president), but I'm just wondering why the thumbnail is a picture of Osama Bin Laden. It's quite comical, but doesn't really have a purpose. Also, isn't this a protected (or semi-protected) page? Meaning only certain people should be able to edit it? Anyway, thanks! Jonahpoke92 (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see any thumbnail of Osama bin Laden. Where are you seeing this? And Obama has been the greatest president since FDR, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's gone for some reason now, thanks! And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion... Jonahpoke92 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Barack Obama is Bi-racial and not fully African American. By saying he is the First African American President denies the fact that he is actually also white and of European Decent. Darth Wilcu (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please refer to the FAQ at the top of this page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Should the FAQ really be "hidden" in a collapsed box? It´s not that easy to find for a new editor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's a very fair point. If we must hide such things, let's hide the less important stuff like "American English" et al before we hide important stuff like the FAQ. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I BOLDly removed the hatting. It looks ok to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's a very fair point. If we must hide such things, let's hide the less important stuff like "American English" et al before we hide important stuff like the FAQ. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Should the FAQ really be "hidden" in a collapsed box? It´s not that easy to find for a new editor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Obama's ethnicity / nationality
- he is american or african-american? Slavic92 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Jonathunder (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Afro-American I.G.I.cool (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- The two terms are not at odds with one another and one does not preclude the other. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Afro-American I.G.I.cool (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
BLP and religion in infobox
Religion in infobox has been removed from the featured Hillary Clinton BLP, on grounds that it violates WP:BLP. I removed it here, but was reverted, and will stick with 1RR. What do people think?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think you should make an RfC. It does not seem likely that you didnt realize that this deletion would be contentious. And frankly your argument seems disingenious to put it mildly. There are prominent reasons why Obama's religious identity is a different kind of issue than Clinton's.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I will start an RFC. Obviously, the Clinton and Obama cases are not identical, but I don't think the differences require a different outcome under WP:BLP. There's nothing disingenuous about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is a question of editorial judgment not of BLP or some core policy. Guy Macon is completely wrong in his idea that there can be or should be a general solution across all presidential infoboxes - that is not how policy works in wikipedia (except for MOS issues). Even when we have sitewide policies on content (and I think it is quite arguable whether we have that regarding religion), they still have to be interpreted locally.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will start an RFC within a day or so, either here or at the Clinton article, unless someone beats me to it, or we reach consensus first, or the two featured BLPs treat religion the same in the infoboxes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think that is clearly the right approach if you find it necessary to press the issue.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will start an RFC within a day or so, either here or at the Clinton article, unless someone beats me to it, or we reach consensus first, or the two featured BLPs treat religion the same in the infoboxes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is a question of editorial judgment not of BLP or some core policy. Guy Macon is completely wrong in his idea that there can be or should be a general solution across all presidential infoboxes - that is not how policy works in wikipedia (except for MOS issues). Even when we have sitewide policies on content (and I think it is quite arguable whether we have that regarding religion), they still have to be interpreted locally.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I will start an RFC. Obviously, the Clinton and Obama cases are not identical, but I don't think the differences require a different outcome under WP:BLP. There's nothing disingenuous about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, can we spare the extended discussion until an RfC? There's an overarching question regarding religion as an infobox parameter for American national-level politicians project-wide, and then a question of how that applies to each article. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080918032039/http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117219748197216894-Sn6oV_4KLQHp_xz7CjYLuyjv3Jg_20070324.html to http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117219748197216894-Sn6oV_4KLQHp_xz7CjYLuyjv3Jg_20070324.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090407010806/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/obama-denies-bailout-fund_n_180563.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/obama-denies-bailout-fund_n_180563.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100613163056/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087 to http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aw4F_L7E4xYg
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150416063154/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07/obama_july_22_2009_press_confe.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07/obama_july_22_2009_press_confe.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110828104819/http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/mar/23/ap-news-in-brief/ to http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/mar/23/ap-news-in-brief/
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511232554/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/obama-christian-by-choice_n_742124.html?view=print to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/obama-christian-by-choice_n_742124.html?view=print
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080214141924/http://www.washingtonian.com:80/articles/mediapolitics/1836.html to http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/1836.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Obama is not our first black president he is biracial. This is spelled out in the very text of this page stating his mother was white. 173.13.61.181 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. Izno (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Mass shooting in Orlando
My proposition for the main article: "Under Obama administration on June 12, 2016 in Orlando happened the deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history. At least 50 people were killed; another 53 people were injured in the shooting." put this into the Gun control section. Obngfs (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not clear how that's directly related to the section topic though. WP:TOOSOON. Wait until something (if anything) comes of it. If he starts pushing for gun control measures or some actual change occurs, then we include it. Until then, we wait. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, "under Obama administration" seems to assign blame for the shooting on Obama and his administration. Of course, that would be ridiculous. I'm sure
Gundle2600the original poster did not mean to say that, right? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, "under Obama administration" seems to assign blame for the shooting on Obama and his administration. Of course, that would be ridiculous. I'm sure
serve openly gay
Someone keeps reverting my edit because they apparently don't understand this: Gays have always served as openly in the military as anyone else, and it would be rude to imply otherwise. What they were prevented from doing is being open about being gay. They were prevented from serving openly gay, not from serving openly. --Espoo (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- The problem isn't necessarily with what you are trying to say. The problem is with how you are trying to say it. Your construct boils down to "gay people serving openly gay," which sounds just plain weird. The way it is currently written, it is implied that we are talking about openly gay and lesbian people serving openly as gay and lesbian people, but the redundancy in what I just wrote should be obvious. Besides, I disagree with what you are trying to say anyway. I would think gays and lesbians serving in the military want to be treated like everyone else in the military, regardless of whether people know they are gay or lesbian. Flip the argument around and ask yourself if straight people want to serve openly straight. That's just as weird, if you ask me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- The obvious logical solution is to remove the unnecessary first "gay" from the sentence. "Serve openly" is not logical, so "gay" cannot be left out there. What you want to say is that people were allowed to serve openly gay, but even that is not good English. What you and many journalists are trying to say in a clumsy, awkward short way is "people were allowed to serve despite being openly gay".
- Basically the problem is caused by the awkward shorthand expression without another verb combining "serve" and "openly" without "gay", but it's not much better with "gay". Better English would be to say that people were finally allowed to serve in the military even if they were openly gay.
- Your comment about straight people makes absolutely no sense. They have always been able to show their sexual orientation openly. --Espoo (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not clear to me what you think "openly gay" means. This has nothing to do with a person acting in a manner that others might perceive of as "gay" - that's not what the policy is addressing (maybe that's not what you're saying - I can't tell). So "despite" and "even if" are offensive, and incorrect in the context of the policy change. The point is that people are now allowed to serve without regard to what their sexual orientation is, and they no longer have to lie about it or hide it, or reveal it, or anything in between. It's now irrelevant. "Don't ask, don't tell" was an early well-intentioned attempt to reverse long-standing discrimination by saying we can't ask you and you shouldn't tell us. But in other words, you should lie about yourself, you cannot serve openly, in an open manner. Now the matter of a person's sexuality is irrelevant. It is no one's business. Gay people can serve in the same open manner as straight people. So "serving openly" is correct, and "serving openly gay" is not, and isn't even grammatically correct. Tvoz/talk 20:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- [Edit conflict] Espoo, "serving openly" is a form of a widely-used idiom referring specifically to gay people not being required to hide their sexual orientation in order to serve in the military, work in any industry, be a scoutmaster, teacher, taxi driver, police officer, etc etc. Sjessey's reversion is the correct usage (and I would have made the same reversion). "Gay" is clear from the sentence and the context and adding it is redundant and awkward. And your comments They were prevented from serving openly gay, not from serving openly and Gays have always served as openly in the military as anyone else make no sense. Surely you understand that under the old policy, that Obama reversed, gay people were forced to lie about their identity in order to serve - I don't know in what way you think that means they served as "openly" as anyone else. They didn't have to lie about the fact that they were in the military? No, they had to lie about the fact that they were gay. No longer - now they can serve openly = in an open manner.Tvoz/talk 19:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Katefuller (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Barack Obama has a wife called Michelle, and two daughters; Malia and Sasha.
- Not done - because the article already includes that - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't he a Muslim?
His religion is Islam, not Protestantism. This has been proven many times. Can someone change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.192.31.109 (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- See the FAQ at the top of this page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Aceusa" changed his religion to Islam, this constitutes vandalism to me as it's #1 not true, and #2 fits with stupid political views, not facts. I can't edit the page, however.
TheWaffleTruth (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Already done Sam Sailor Talk! 10:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
MSheerin1705 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- He's 54 today and the existing template will change him to 55 tomorrow. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
MSheerin1705 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Blank request. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{age 54}} replaced by {{age 55}}
MSheerin1705 (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Duplicate. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Barack Hussein Obama II (US: /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ;[1][2] born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office and the first president born outside the continental United States AND WILL BE THE FUTURE FIRST BLACK FIRST GENTLEMAN.[3] Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School between 1992 and 2004. While serving three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004, he ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for the United States House of Representatives in 2000 against incumbent Bobby Rush.
Cofo6616 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Barak". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster., "Hussein". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster., "Obama". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster..
- ^ "Barak". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d. "Hussein". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d. "Obama". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d.
- ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvO3qV8kNVA&index=2&list=PLiZxWe0ejyv_G38cZQLQPSHPzoi1FddEU
- Not done for obvious reasons. GABgab 23:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The references listed must be the weakest ones I've ever seen. To claim someone attended college, let alone graduated because of one book written by who knows, is ludicrous at best. However since wiki is liberal they will stick to his college experience as fact even if it was hand-written and posted on a bulliten board. Why not leave his education as "unknown" until proven by the source himself? I have a record and grade from each and every class I took my 4 years at Purdue. George W. Bush' and AL Gore jrs. Was leaked out. After 7.5 years of Obama, something would have leaked by now. The only thing he will admit is to doing drugs heavily. Put that in his education. What about when Sotero entered him in school as a Muslim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.105.17 (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
First sentence (again)
I reverted the first sentence to be in line with was agreed before, i.e. "... is an American politician currently serving as the 44th..." Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Merger of Section 5 of Presidency of Barack Obama into this article
Section 4 "Presidency (since 2009)" of this article has already one half of the byte count of Presidency of Barack Obama and Section 4 is the main part of the article as the whole article has 293 kBytes and Section 4 has 109 kBytes. But this article is viewed 45 times more often than the "main article" for the presidency. Presidency of Barack Obama is like a shadow article. --Fb8cont (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Compare with George W. Bush and Presidency of George W. Bush. These two articles separate the topic: The "Presidency"-article is mostly a collection of links to specific topics and the "Presidency"-section of the main article is a description/summary of the events. --Fb8cont (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Update:Only merger of Section 5 ("Policies", ~ 178 kBytes) into this article. As most content is a duplicate the byte count would only increase by 70 kB or less as most topics have links to special articles. Why the effort? Because now there are these two articles both portraying to give the summary of his presidential policies: One read by 45 times more people than the other. --Fb8cont (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't need to make a large article even larger by merging in a common and well-defined subtopic. --NeilN talk to me 17:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose If anything, we should trim Barack_Obama#Presidency (since_2009) so that it's a summary of Presidency of Barack Obama, not merge it into this one so that this article becomes unmanageable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Neil's arguments Orser67 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose No, obviously. If people can't be bothered clicking the links, they won't bother to read the merged text anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
barack
tell me about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuacash123 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- He's just this guy, you know. (Also, he's got an entire article on him here, so you could probably start there.) clpo13(talk) 18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Book : The Long Game - How Obama Defied Washington and redefined America's role in the world
written by Derek Chollet, look inside here.
Imo worth to mention in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Neun-x, I added it to List of books and films about Barack Obama. I don´t think it needs to be mentioned in this article, but it may be usable as a source here or in one of the sub-articles. I haven´t read it (or about it) so I have no real opinion on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Another book
At List of books and films about Barack Obama I found this interesting title [11]: 1,249 well sourced examples of Barack Obama's lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc. It´s quite catchy, and several commenters on amazon thinks very highly of it. However, my WP-sense tells me that maybe I ought to remove this. My question is, do I have a good WP-reason for doing so? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- In case this paper (pamphlet ?) has no or almost no public attention / perception we might remove it (the opposite: if it has a high number of downloads this is/would be a factor to keep it on the list.
- 16 hits => imo almost no public attention / perception . --Neun-x (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- I removed it. Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder? can be at least be found at goodreads.com and wnd.com. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
"urged Turkish and Kurdish forces to end their clashes in northern Syria"
@Fb8cont has added it ; Muboshgu has reverted it ("WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, please suggest edits on the talk page before making any more").
@Muboshgu : I don't see any recentism in it. It is not a matter of days or a few weeks that kurdish men fight (supported by US advisers, material and afaik also by advisers sent by Germany) against IS fighters. Seen in the context that Erdogan has visited Putin in Mosciw a short time ago and that Erdogan puts much efforts in his fight against kurdish autonomy wishes ... it is imo obvious that this no simple or short-term "building yard" for Obama (and his successor).
? why did you write 'wp:undue' ? --Neun-x (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Because it's a fairly minor event in the grand scheme of Obama's life/this article. All of the other sentences in that paragraph (with the possible exception of Obama reaffirming his belief that "Assad must go" in 2015) are clearly fairly important events that help explain the situation in Syria and Obama's response to it. A sentence explaining the Kurdish role in the civil war and Obama's relations with them and the Turks could be worth adding, but this particular announcement doesn't seem to be particularly important to me. Orser67 (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- 505.000 google-hits with the search words "Kurds" "Obama" "Erdogan".
- those of them during the last month. --Neun-x (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- It this is added is should be at the article about Obama's presidency not here.--67.68.20.73 (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Obama is not African American.
To call Obama black or African American is to say black genetics are superior to white genetics, this is racist. Obama had a white mother, and a black father. These genetics mixed and made a mixed race baby who is neither white nor black but both at the same time.
When we focus on him being black, we are saying "white genes don't matter" we are saying black is superior.
why do so many fall into this trap? and especially on wikipedia?
Take a look at his dad, and take a look at him. Still think he is black? He isn't black or white, he is a mixed race. he is the first mixed race president. He was not born in Africa, so he is not African American but only American.
Please stop racism and stop allowing this article to contain racism. 50.35.102.35 (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- "To call Obama black or African American is to say black genetics are superior to white genetics, this is racist." No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't. "When we focus on him being black, we are saying "white genes don't matter" we are saying black is superior." For one, Black Americans are a minority in the United States, and beyond that, every president before him has been White. In no way, shape, or form is this racist. Dustin (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sources call him African American and that is why Wikipedia does. Literally speaking, he is one of the very few technical African Americans since he really does have an African parent and an American parent. Although, Kenyan American would be more accurate or American Kenyan.KINGOFTO (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- He is an American, not a Kenyan, so between those two, only "Kenyan American" would be correct. Dustin (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please expand and read question #2 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Also, note the caution about this not being a WP:FORUM to discuss matters such as race that are unrelated to improving the article. As an encyclopedia we are a compendium of what other people say, namely reliable sources. It is not Wikipedia's place to challenge or change the conception of race in America or the words people use to describe it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- OP is apparently unaware of the one-drop rule, which, for a very long time, determined that any amount of black ancestry was enough to make a person black. I highly doubt the proponents of that rule considered white blood to be inferior. There are a lot of complicated reasons why people of mixed black and white heritage may be considered more "black" than "white" (see, for example, hypodescent, passing (racial identity), etc.), but as others have said, the only thing that matters for this particular article are the sources that refer to Obama as African American (of which there are many). clpo13(talk) 18:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please expand and read question #2 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Also, note the caution about this not being a WP:FORUM to discuss matters such as race that are unrelated to improving the article. As an encyclopedia we are a compendium of what other people say, namely reliable sources. It is not Wikipedia's place to challenge or change the conception of race in America or the words people use to describe it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- He is an American, not a Kenyan, so between those two, only "Kenyan American" would be correct. Dustin (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sources call him African American and that is why Wikipedia does. Literally speaking, he is one of the very few technical African Americans since he really does have an African parent and an American parent. Although, Kenyan American would be more accurate or American Kenyan.KINGOFTO (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Marine1902 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC) he was the fiorst president of the usa
- Not done: Not true. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Make this article even better
How about a video for the rather poor internet policy section?
–2A03:2267:0:0:4916:8BB6:930D:650E (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
"...documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim..."
Washington Post source: I assume there is some reason this is not included..not notable maybe? I think it should be included, any opposed to that? 76.67.31.34 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- If there was anything to this it would have been exposed in Ihe 9 1/2 year timeframe between now and when this article was posted. Nor remotely worth covering.--64.229.164.105 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- "anything to this" implies not true and "exposed" implies it is a "bad" thing, but AP and Washington Post are good sources and being registered in school as a Muslim is not a bad thing, so, respectfully, your comment seems off point. 76.67.31.34 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am wondering if it was included long ago and removed for a legitimate reason. 76.67.31.34 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've added it...I was not logged in (76.67.31.34) during the above discussion.KINGOFTO (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am wondering if it was included long ago and removed for a legitimate reason. 76.67.31.34 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- "anything to this" implies not true and "exposed" implies it is a "bad" thing, but AP and Washington Post are good sources and being registered in school as a Muslim is not a bad thing, so, respectfully, your comment seems off point. 76.67.31.34 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- If there was anything to this it would have been exposed in Ihe 9 1/2 year timeframe between now and when this article was posted. Nor remotely worth covering.--64.229.164.105 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Removed as irrelevant. He isn't and wasn't a muslim, so what anything on his school certificate might or might not have said is of no biographical importance. This question is relevant only to the Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, which are not treated at all in this biography. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was with you at the end of the first sentence. But any mention of conspiracy theories smacks of irrelevant strawman to me. Would not it be notable if John Kennedy had once been registered in school as being of the Jewish faith? I think its interesting and encyclopedic although I agree it is certainly not of major importance. I do not think the biography should be written with any consideration at all for conspiracy theories and it gives such theories power when used as a reason for not including some info.; on't you agree? KINGOFTO (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is no reason to include it. It is of zero relevance to Obama or interest to the sources, only to the sources describing a conspiracy theory that is not the subject of this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- And plus, The Washington Post is the only source out there which makes any straightforward statement of whether Obama is a Muslim, to which even the source itself, makes statements to the contrary, and therefore, any inclusion of this statement would give undue weight to what's actually stated in the source. Therefore, any statements about Obama being Muslim holds no historical significance and as such, is of zero relevance to Obama, and the speculation of whether he is Muslim is already covered within the conspiracy theories article as Wikidemon has already stated. You have to show multiple different sources citing that he's a Muslim and to show how that employs any historical significance before making any sort of mention in the article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- To Wikidemon and Mythdon, the Associated Press also carried the sourced article and this is a piece of info which I think is the kind of notable minutia that one expects to find in an encyclopedia. I also see the Chicago Tribune said "...being listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school, Strada Asisia, where he attended 1st through 3rd grades."[12] There are other sources which show photos of the registration. A critical thinking approach to whether or not to include this documentation does not benefit from any perceived attachment of the documentation to any sort of conspiracy theory. Just because a conspiracy theory exists does not justify omitting well sourced material that might also be used in the theory, for example, here is a section of Hitler's bio which would equally meet the rationale for exclusion you have given above, I think:
- "Nazi official Hans Frank suggested that Alois's mother had been employed as a housekeeper for a Jewish family in Graz, and that the family's 19-year-old son Leopold Frankenberger had fathered Alois.[7] No Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, and no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence,[8] so historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish.[9][10]"
- The assertion that the inclusion of this info equates to Obama "being" Muslim or was a Muslim is a false assertion, just as an assertion that the inclusion of the info about Hitler above is an assertion by Editors that he was a jew would also be false. The matter in question is not a statement about Obama being Muslim, it is a reference to an existing document, not a statement.KINGOFTO (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like useful and relevant information that might be well worth including in the page *after* he steps down as President. While he remains President, though, there is far too high a risk that - while I agree with you it's just an interesting anecdotal sidebar to his life - it might be misinterpreted by those who don't understand such nuances. Put another way: while he's in office, particularly during the Presidential race, it's an attack on him and his side; once he's out, it's not an attack. So, I'd say leave it for now but perhaps resubmit next year. - DewiMorgan (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, that makes sense to me.KINGOFTO (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- This looks like useful and relevant information that might be well worth including in the page *after* he steps down as President. While he remains President, though, there is far too high a risk that - while I agree with you it's just an interesting anecdotal sidebar to his life - it might be misinterpreted by those who don't understand such nuances. Put another way: while he's in office, particularly during the Presidential race, it's an attack on him and his side; once he's out, it's not an attack. So, I'd say leave it for now but perhaps resubmit next year. - DewiMorgan (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- To Wikidemon and Mythdon, the Associated Press also carried the sourced article and this is a piece of info which I think is the kind of notable minutia that one expects to find in an encyclopedia. I also see the Chicago Tribune said "...being listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school, Strada Asisia, where he attended 1st through 3rd grades."[12] There are other sources which show photos of the registration. A critical thinking approach to whether or not to include this documentation does not benefit from any perceived attachment of the documentation to any sort of conspiracy theory. Just because a conspiracy theory exists does not justify omitting well sourced material that might also be used in the theory, for example, here is a section of Hitler's bio which would equally meet the rationale for exclusion you have given above, I think:
- And plus, The Washington Post is the only source out there which makes any straightforward statement of whether Obama is a Muslim, to which even the source itself, makes statements to the contrary, and therefore, any inclusion of this statement would give undue weight to what's actually stated in the source. Therefore, any statements about Obama being Muslim holds no historical significance and as such, is of zero relevance to Obama, and the speculation of whether he is Muslim is already covered within the conspiracy theories article as Wikidemon has already stated. You have to show multiple different sources citing that he's a Muslim and to show how that employs any historical significance before making any sort of mention in the article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is no reason to include it. It is of zero relevance to Obama or interest to the sources, only to the sources describing a conspiracy theory that is not the subject of this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was with you at the end of the first sentence. But any mention of conspiracy theories smacks of irrelevant strawman to me. Would not it be notable if John Kennedy had once been registered in school as being of the Jewish faith? I think its interesting and encyclopedic although I agree it is certainly not of major importance. I do not think the biography should be written with any consideration at all for conspiracy theories and it gives such theories power when used as a reason for not including some info.; on't you agree? KINGOFTO (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Religion
Obama's religion is not nondenominational Christianity. He attends multiple Protestant churches and do not hold a membership in a one, single, definitive denomination. This is not nondenominational Christianity (that article describes people who attend nondenominational churches - a totally different thing from adhering to multiple ones).Ernio48 (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- The parameter should be removed from the infobox per this Village Pump RfC. The specifics are covered satisfactorily within the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
117.248.36.21 (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Take out the fake middle name.
2602:30A:C09A:AA90:D4D6:1B2D:192B:D4DA (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not done as it is not a "fake" - see the references - Arjayay (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206100640/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040802/2obama.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040802/2obama.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to add that trump will be next president after obama's term is over. 47.32.218.125 (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- This was added to the infobox at 07.37 on November 9 and to the lead at 08.07 on November 9 - about 18 hours before your request - Arjayay (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed it, because it is still speculation. We can only be certain once Trump is actually inaugurated, because anything could happen before then. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Nicknames
@Dr. K: re special:diff/751842249 we already mention at Barack_Obama#Education:
- In his youth, Obama went by the nickname Barry.
This is supported by the listed source:
- Wolffe, Richard (March 22, 2008). "When Barry Became Barack". Newsweek. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
I also notice it occurs in another source listed elsewhere on the page:
- Gordon, Larry (January 29, 2007). "Occidental recalls 'Barry' Obama". Los Angeles Times. p. B1. Archived from the original on May 24, 2010. Retrieved May 12, 2010.
As for "no-Drama Obama" I didn't notice the 'blog' part of the URL https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/01/13/the-insiders-the-problem-with-no-drama-obama/ but there were lots of hits for it. Notably the No Drama Obama redirect has existed since 22 November 2008 which allowed me to do a targeted search for that year. Here are some others:
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-weissman/no-drama-obamas-double-ro_b_135736.html (although absent in the URL I notice this also says "the blog", just pointing out as example of it being used 6 years prior to 2014)
- http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/52030/ New York Mag "He won by being No Drama Obama."
- http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/11/obamas-first-drama-hillary-clinton Mother Jones (magazine) "the presidential transition of no-drama Obama"
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3502456/Barack-Obamas-aides-believe-he-has-made-a-mistake-in-hiring-Hillary-Clinton.html The Telegraph: The President-elect's campaign was tightly controlled, with very few uncoordinated leaks. The candidate was known as "No Drama Obama."
Would the last 3 be enough for NDO? Ranze (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- The Newsweek reference for "Barry" mentions that Obama told his family that he would not use that nickname any longer. Based on that fact and the fact that "Barry" is no longer used, I don't think that we can include it. The other nickname is not widely used to describe Obama, at least imo. This being a featured article, perhaps we need a few more opinions on this. Dr. K. 04:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Listing every possible name is not the purpose of Wikipedia. "No Drama Obama" is more of a slogan than a nickname, and is at any rate ephemeral word play. Presidents rarely have nicknames. OMG I am wrong: diff. Would someone please explain what an encyclopedia is. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- It gets better. Check Special:Contributions/Ranze and wonder at Shillary. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you John. I completely agree. I hadn't seen that discussion at Hillary Clinton's article. It's surreal. For more, look at this proposal. Dr. K. 11:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- It gets better. Check Special:Contributions/Ranze and wonder at Shillary. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Consider a separate article on Malia Obama
She is no longer a minor.
There is plenty of citations and articles about her.
There are other articles on all the presidential children of the past.
The White House didn't want an article but Malia is no longer a child but a high school graduate. Besides, this is English Wikipedia, not White House Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris New Yorker (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by "The White House didn't want an article." I don't know where you heard this, but I guarantee there'd still be an article on Barack Obama and his wife even if they publicly stated they didn't want to have Wikipedia articles. Plus the statement "Besides, this is English Wikipedia, not White House Wikipedia." doesn't really help your argument. It would be better for you to point out in what way Family of Barack Obama#Malia and Sasha Obama does not suffice. Dustin (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed; whether the White House wants an article or not is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
It would not suffice if there are reliable sources that only cover Malia and not the Family of Barack Obama. Using the same logic, the Barack Obama article should not be allowed because there is a President of the United States article. It is simply manipulation if a Malia article is not allowed. BBBH (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Is Malia notable on her own? She wouldn't merit an article merely for being the President's child; Notability is not inherited. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree - just being the son / daughter of a famous person and having one's name mentioned in a number of publications is not a reason for a separate page. Else we would need a separate page for each US president's kid. Once Malia starts to accomplish achievements (gets elected as a senator or any high office?) she will have a page of her own. Notthebestusername (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Along this same topic, her being mentioned as going to Harvard should be removed from Barack's wikipedia page entirely. I don't see the relevance. --Curoi (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Lede sentence
The current lede sentence of the article says that Obama "...is the 44th and current President of the United States.." All the other articles about presidents define them as "an American politician who was/is the XXth president of the United States." In other words, they define what the person is like any other lede sentence, as well as their position as president. See George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. (This came to my attention because of a current debate at the Donald Trump article about what to put in his lede sentence.) I propose that the lede sentence here be changed to "... is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States." (The other articles do not appear to wikilink "American" or "politician".) Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you can just look in the history, to see it was changed recently without discussion (allegedly because everyone would know the president is a politician). Perhaps it matters little, but sure just change it back to the way the others do it for, I guess, consistency (and if that is the way it was done when it passed FA). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Nevermind, I did it for you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I see that. Thanks for fixing it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The very first statement says "..44th and current President of the United States.." which is misleading as Google shows this atop when searched for Barack Obama. I'd suggest removal of "current" or "and current" would suffice. Thanks Pradip.rahul (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not done He is the current president and he will be the president until Donald Trump will be sworn in. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC).
Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2016
This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
AS per your definition of an African American, President Obama is the SECOND president with African blood, therefor he is NOT the first "African American" president. Please correct the record and identify him as the SECOND president with African American bloodline. The first being Dwight Eisenhower, who's Mother, via the Link bloodline, was of African decent.
This ongoing, false, designation place upon Obama is a disgrace to the honorable service of President Eisenhower to our contry. 2601:8C2:C000:6865:ECFB:B5A5:15E6:75E4 (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please give a reliable source with such a claim. 331dot (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Not done-Please provide reliable source.Light❯❯❯ Saber 13:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a question
Exactly why aren't Trump and Pence listed as the successors of Obama and Biden on the respective articles? MB298 (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Never mind. I saw above! MB298 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The Western Wall and the Ancient City-UN resolution
According to the last resolution the western wall belongs to the arab nation. OBAMA administration and the PLO are behind the resolution. Add it to the paragraph on ISRAEL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.191.66 (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)