Talk:Barack Obama

No criticism?

The George W. Bush article contains the word "criticism" ten times, twice in the lead. This article only uses the word once, in the trifling matter of the Nobel Peace Prize. Obviously, Obama has received criticism for a number of his policies and activities in the last year, especially his push for health care legislation, his continuation of Bush's foreign policy, evinced by his decision to send additional troops into the field, and his unwillingness to close Gitmo, another Bush policy he's left unchanged. Those are major issues, and criticism of his positions on those issues is notable. 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see questions 6-9 in the FAQ list at the top of this page. We cover major events in a logical / chronological order rather than highlighting criticism or praise sections. We generally just say what happened and not whether people are happy or unhappy about it, although critics and detractors are sometimes mentioned, particularly in some of the child articles about the "presidency of..." or the specific issues in question. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you enter "criticism" in the archive search box at the top of this page, you can view the numerous discussionsthat have taken place on the subject.--JayJasper (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with OP. If you were to take a neutral party and have them read both the Obama and Bush articles, they would come to one of two conclusions. Either there is no real criticism of Obama or their was a biased party who preferred Obama over Bush. This type of thing is only hurting wikipedia because any intelligent person can tell you there is valid criticism of both Presidents. So to have criticism in one but not the other is just ludicrous. 98.127.155.132 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between the criticism aimed at Obama and the criticism aimed at Bush. Virtually all criticism aimed at Obama is foot-stamping hyperbole by political opponents. Virtually all criticism of Bush is based on legitimate complaints about his atrocious Presidency (which included 9/11, Katrina and the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey smacks of POV. Effectively, he is saying criticism of Bush is legit but not for Obama. There has been criticism of Obama by liberals. Are they now his "political opponents"? SMP0328. (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is heading in an unnecessary and unproductive direction. In general, our articles about politicians try to avoid sections devoted to criticism, and avoid criticism generally, because criticism is not really a pertinent biographical fact about people unless it is tied somehow to their life. Sometimes a person's detractors, or problematic things about them or their actions, are of biographical importance, and they can be included. For example, in his book Obama recounted drug use in his youth, something that is a significant part of his life story. We don't call it a criticism or a controversy, it is simply an event that happened. Another thing we avoid is trying to balance articles about people against each other so they are equally or positive or negative. It just doesn't work like that - we would have to calibrate Obama's article against not only other presidents, but all of his political rivals, those of heads of state of other countries, and so on. And to what end? It is not our job here on this page to clean up the Bush article or speculate about what makes Bush a controversial figure, but if it is misfocused you are free to go there and try to improve it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. Obviously there's no way to fit everything into this article, but it is notable and noteworthy to at least MENTION that he's received criticism for certain things. There's not even a link to a criticism page. The health care page doesn't include any criticism of his positions either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you justify the large amount of criticism mentioned in the GWB article? Why the difference. I don't think they should be held to different standards. 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want a criticm section anyway, and A7 doesn't apply, because there has been massive coverage of criticism of his health care position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So what specifically do you want to add or change?Falcon8765 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, the Presidency of Barack Obama article uses the word criticism four times, and the Presidency of George W. Bush article doesn't use the word at all. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just off a random google search, something like: Gitmo or Obamacare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two ways to fix the inequality, have no criticisms in any article or have them in both articles. Some articles have criticisms without calling it such. If there are criticisms, they should be only the main ones. Otherwise, every politician could have an entire book chapter about how bad they are. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What about criticism of the oil spill?[4] Truthsort (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Obama had nothing to do with the oil spill? BP operated there long before he was in office.--Saab 1989 (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Answer could be correct but the logic is wrong. Otherwise, "Obama (or Bush) has nothing to do with the economy since it was there before they were even born". Obama's handling of the spill may be questioned in the future. Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina made some people hate him. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinion columns are not reliable sources. We assert facts here, even fact about opinions, but we do not assert an opinion as fact, which is what an OpEd is. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

George W. Bush is not a fair comparison, as he has had two terms and has had some of the lowest approval ratings of all-time and is not a very popular president in general. Barak Obama hasn't even completed one term, so this argument doesn't make much sense. It shouldn't be a game anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Some critics are calling this oil spill "Obama's Katrina".[5] Truthsort (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read that article, you will find the "critics" are non-notable residents of the nowhere-near-the-spill NYC area. It also incorrectly refers to the "National Resources Defense Council" (presumably meant to be the Natural Resources Defense Council of the same area). To consider an appropriate inclusion of this sort of opinion, we would need to see a preponderance of mainstream reliable sources talking about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also point out that half of everything these days is being nicknamed "Obama's Katrina," such as the earthquake in Haiti. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The consensus in the news is that it isn't Obama's Katrina yet. However, statements like Obama's Interior Secretary saying that the government will push BP out of the way when the government has neither the expertise nor the equipment to cap the well is making the administration look weak. Time will tell whether Obama is damaged by the spill. The Exxon Valdez did not damage any president. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is just more unreferenced guesswork that is essentially meaningless and doesn't improve the article. The spill massive gushing plume of evil is the result of not enough regulation and oversight (a consequence of small government). It's yet another issue that Obama has inherited from other people/agencies. It is difficult to see circumstances in which this matter will become significant enough to be a notable aspect of Obama's biography, although there are conceivably related articles in which this could be brought up. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Image

Why did this image get removed from the article? Was there consensus to do so?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was a consensus see this discussion. The edit here was made in October of last year. --Modocc (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Gulf Oil Spill

Is Wikipedia even going to mention it, or at least that he went down to the Gulf to check on the spill's cleanup process? Some pros and cons of his response would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.14.239 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography cover his entire life. Giving details of every incident during his presidency is impossible. A more thorough explanation would be appropriate perhaps at Presidency of Barack Obama. Grsz¹¹ 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I agree with Grsz11 that it's too minor a detail to include for now. It could turn out in the end that Obama's actions in response to the oil spill, and/or the public perception and political fallout, are one of the events of the presidency that's worth covering here. However, at this point it's an event in progress, and too early to tell. Traveling to the scene of a disaster by itself isn't that remarkable. Every president does it many times while in office, it must be part of the job description, and the press always covers it of course. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of far more minor events from his presidency mentioned in the article. The article mentions secrecy given to presidential records, changing FOIA procedures, allowing federal funding of foreign abortions, signing the state children's health insurance bill, and the hate crimes law. All of these are far less significant than the oil spill. Even if it's just a sentence or two under Domestic policy (subject to expansion in the future if he takes more direct action concerning the spill), it should at least be mentioned. --B (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the largest oil spill in U.S. history, that's not minor. Obama has also taken full responsibility for it which attaches the whole incident to his "presidential hip". It doesn't have to be a response section but some words under the environmental section, etc.--NortyNort (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't have much to do with Obama's biography, quite frankly. The response of his administration is typical and unremarkable. If Obama himself were to do (or not do) something notable (like don a wetsuit and swim to the site of the leak) then it would be worth mentioning here. Until then, it is better covered under Presidency of Barack Obama and BP. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the news media thinks it has something to do with him. There is a USA Today/Gallup poll on his performance relative to the spill [6]. CNN has an article about Obama personally promising to triple the cleanup manpower [7]. Governor Jindal has a daily call with the White House [8]. I should note that Bobby Jindal doesn't mention the spill either, which is equally ridiculous. This is probably the most important event of Jindal's governorship and the second most important of Obama's presidency (behind health care). George W. Bush has three paragraphs on Hurricane Katrina and, while I'm aware that the references to this event as Obama's Katrina are hyperbole, I would think the oil spill would at least rate a sentence here. Not long before the spill, Obama had announced plans regarding offshore drilling. It would seem to me not unreasonable to add one sentence under Domestic policy that says something like, "Obama introduced a proposal to expand areas open to off-shore drilling on March 31, 2010 [9]. The plans were later shelved following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the worst oil spill in US history." That informs the reader of his actions on a key domestic policy issue and acknowledges the existence of this important piece of his presidency. --B (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I would not oppose an addition of an entry based on the oil spill. While I do agree the bulk of any mention should be included in Obama's presidency article, it's worth a mention here too. In regards to the back and forth here, I think the reasons for hesitation on inclusions of these types of things are legit, and Scjessey's response(while it does look POVish) is based on the fact that there were editors here wanting to included everything negative pushed at Obama during the first months of his presidency. Putting the blame on him for everything(which was absolutely ridiculous). While the Bush article developed over time and many of the aspects inside had the opportunity of time to reflect on decisions and actions. I would also caution that once this is included, and I think it should be, for editors to be aware of attempts to coatrack sections. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama's response to the Oil Spill become a frequent theme in the media. It is notable that there is an unprecedented gushing oil spill in the Gulf with tremendous ecological ramifications. Barack Obama has been criticized for his passivity in dealing with the spill, and it is certainly a NPOV to place recognition of this criticism. It is also very important to note that he has created a commission to study the spill and has promised a criminal prosecution on BP. For these reasons, I feel that his response to the spill deserves mention.

--Screwball23 talk 04:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In theory, a good idea. We have a similar section in Bush's article about Katrina. However, your addition introduced some content that may need better verification or qualification; I see that the only source verifying criticism of Obama and/or BP—and it undoubtedly exists—is the Christian Science Monitor (who, I'll hazard a guess, supported exploratory off-shore drilling before this happened), and I don't really think they're a reliable source. I suggest that the CSMonitor source be removed and replaced with reputable print or broadcast news institutions, instead. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, The Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source, in almost all areas. The original wording was off base, as I believe are the comparisons to Katrina. Although there is surely room to be critical of the Obama administration for various reactions. Katrina was a natural disaster, which federal and state governments are largely responsible for aid and cleanup. The oil spill was a result of an entity(BP), and by law BP was supposed to have a plan in place for situations just like the current one. Like I indicated, there is valid criticism, but it's probably has more to do with appearances than actual responsibility. The oil companies are supposed to have the equipment and plans to deal with these situations. By law and common sense. Dave Dial (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid "Obama's Katrina" has all the hallmarks of a senseless political meme, like calling everything "-gate". If so, it's unencyclopedic no matter how many times it gets repeated by the press. Presidents are always criticized over everything bad that happens in the United States, that's the industry of politics. I hope it can be confined to large-scale water-borne disasters in the Gulf of Mexico, but I'm afraid from now on out, every time there is any lingering problem that a government leader cannot quickly fix they'll call it X's Katrina. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's a political meme, doesn't mean that the underlying issue and/or criticism cannot be included in the article. Each incident should be analyzed on its own merits, not on the popularity of a phrase.LedRush (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. I was just expressing dissatisfaction with the meme, which makes a comparison between Bush's administration and Obama's that is superficial in every way except the realm of political fallout. The truth behind the meme, the disaster itself and the adequacy of the government response, is very important. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why no mention of Transocean or Halliburton who were the companies actually working this rig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.75.110 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The section on the oil spill is way too long. The first two sentences explain when and how the spill occurred, and give details about how BP responded. These are not biographical details about Obama and are best covered in Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This article should only be concerned with the notable aspects of the event that specifically involve Obama. I would suggest something more like this:

Main article: Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Following a blowout at an offshore oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama directed Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to review and report on the events surrounding incident. Obama visited the Gulf coast on May 2 and again on May 28, among visits by members of his cabinet. As efforts to significantly stanch the leak or entirely prevent the oil from reaching the coast continued, some in the media and public expressed confusion and criticism over various aspects of the incident, including a perceived lack of involvement by Obama and the federal government. Following a month-long series of Congressional hearings, Obama officially began a federal investigation and formed a bipartisan commission to review the matter and recommend steps to avoid similar events in the future.

The bit about Obama visiting the Gulf coast is clunky and out-of-date (he is there today), so that will also need fixing. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, unless it's miraculously over due to this new top-hat, or buzz kill, or whatever procedure, we're only partway into a very long and complex event that will almost certainly involve the President further. When all is said and done the event might be worth a section this long, or maybe shorter, and we will have to make room for the rest of the story as it arises. But anyway, that's rather normal. Current events are like a fast growing hedge in the spring, you have to keep trimming them back so they don't get unruly. Let the new shoots spring up and fill out the bush, cut them when they get too long. Just part of the normal editing process. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Would someone kindly

Get rid of the little (OBAMA IS A MUSLIM) junk under the early life section of this article. I'm sure many people would appreciate it. It's next to the picture of him as a child with his family. I beleive. Actually it is everywhere throughout some sections of the article. Please fix this somebody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendofstuff (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. It's done and the account that made the edit is blocked (not by me). If it still looks that way in your browser you might have to refresh it or flush the cache to get the fixed version of the page to load. Many people are watching the page and usually spot these things quickly, but one of the byproducts of Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is that it's subject to random vandalism. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm sure a lot of people appreciated that being gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendofstuff (talk • contribs) 06:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution does not require that one follow any specific religion to be president. Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and others can be President. None is any more shameful than another. Inaccurate reporting, such as calling a President a Jew or a Muslim, is not right. The Chicken costs $1 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Was there a special reason why you felt the need to add your inflammatory statement to this old thread? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note that what Scjessey was replying to initially was this bit of shit-stirring, and not the benign passage that now appears above. Tarc (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also, any edits this user makes should be removed as a result that the editor is an obvious sock of JB50000/Judith Merrick/Gaydenver. At least until some admin blocks the sock or someone notifies the appropriate venue. Dave Dial (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, would someone please look at Senator Obama's predecessor and successor? I think you'll find they aren't Carol Moseley Braun and the current Democratic nominee. 68.41.79.206 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

where? Tvoz/talk 07:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the anon is misreading the 2004 senate race section; the sentence declares that Braun was Fitzgerald's predecessor, not Obama's. I don't know where he's getting an erroneous Democratic nominee successor. In the United States Senators from Illinois box at the end of the article, it notes Obama's predecessor was Fitzgerald and his successor Burress. Abrazame (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My guess as well. All looks correct. Tvoz/talk 15:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, if you look towards the bottom of the page (in the succession navigation box), where predecessors and successors for any awards, offices, etc one has held or received, you will clearly see that Carol Moseley Braun is his "predecessor" and Alexi Gianoulias as his "successor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.79.206 (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And your problem with that is ____ ? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That portion is actually correct, as Carol Moseley Braun was the Democratic nominee for that senate seat in 1998 and lost to Peter Fitzgerald. Obama was the next Democratic nominee for that senate seat, with Alexi Giannoulias preceding Obama. So it's correct. Dave Dial (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.13.32.48, 30 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove the statement "(OBAMA IS A MUSLIM)" because it is both incorrect, but also contradicts the information given in his summary column on the right half of the webpage under the Religion section.

This statement is in the first line of paragraph 5 in the "Early Life and Career section." This sentence currently reads, "Following high school, (OBAMA IS A MUSLIM) Obama moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College." 108.13.32.48 (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the request. I see that the vandalism has been reverted and an editor has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Q1 is BS.

You claim Obama has no "muslim" heritage, nor did he study it - but his own frickin website says otherwise: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/06/obama_man_of_the_world.php

Quote: 'He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school', but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics -- and more likely to be aware of their nationalism -- if he once studied the Koran with them.'

Why don't you lefties actually include the TRUTH on this blatantly biased article?