Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Talk page info

Removing of referenced content

+wholly inappropriate rationale in this edit.

It is irrelevant what the article is. If it's a featured article, then it shouldn't be because it doesn't include any criticism whatsoever. Alex (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

When an edit is challenged (for example, reverted), it is standard for anyone wanting a change to provide a policy-based reason for the change. Regardless of the merits of the edit, WP:LEAD informs us that sticking stuff in the lead is not satisfactory, nor is going to ANI over a minor disagreement (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I'm sorry, but I must admit that I was quite aggravated by the original revert rationale of this user. They said that it was a "wholly inappropriate edit, especially for the lead section". So, the information can be in the article, just not in the lead, and they said that it can't be included at all.

As for my sig, it was a standard sig (Treat the above as wiki markup. not checked with Sig (nickname)=Alex), a red link to my user page, a nonexistent page at that time). Alex (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Uhh, that edit and the one I just reverted are wholly inappropriate. From the tone, to the YouTube source accusing Obama of murdering children. Absolutely inappropriate. BLP, UNDUE, POV. Dave Dial (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved from my talkpage

Obama

Hey. I wanted to ask you about this edit. You said that the content was not in the citation, but I can't copy+paste the content, can I? I would need to explain it in my own words... Alex (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Noone said you have to copypaste anything. But you cannot invent facts either. Dr. K. 00:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't invent facts.

David Axelrod, the president’s closest political adviser, began showing up at the “Terror Tuesday” meetings, his unspeaking presence a visible reminder of what everyone understood: a successful attack would overwhelm the president’s other aspirations and achievements.
— Jo Becker and Scott Shane, "Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will", The New York Times

And where in that quote is it stated that "Obama is known for Terror Tuesdays"? Dr. K. 00:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the source, the definition would be:

"Terror Tuesday" is a term for a secret national security meetings [attended by Mr. Obama] discussing persons to be assassinated by drone strikes.

The whole NYT article talks about this... Alex (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I could say: "There are 'Terror Tuesdays', secret national security meetings, attended by Obama, discussing persons to be assassinated by drone strikes." Alex (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

How can the meetings be called "secret" if they are reported on the New York Times? Dr. K. 01:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The meetings are not "secret", but assassination lists are. Otherwise, it wouldn't make much sense, apparently. Alex (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

But on the line above you used the expression "secret national security meetings". Dr. K. 01:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Dr.K., is the use of the word "secret" your only objection? If so, then perhaps Alex's material should be restored at least in part. If you have larger objections, let's focus on them. SMP0328. (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The phrasing is only part of the problem. The current administration has specific policies and procedures regarding the war on terror. Concentrating on Tuesday meetings dealing with drone attacks looks to me like an unbalanced approach which lacks WP:DUE coverage of the war on terror policies of the Obama administration. This is a featured article so we have to be careful about additions which fail to give a balanced overview of the policies of the Obama administration. Btw, no need for pinging, I have the article watchlisted. Dr. K. 03:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source for the Obama administration is having such meetings, regardless of the day of the week, the article should refer to them in a way complying with policy. I pinged you because I didn't know if you watchlisted this article. Also, pinging can help even with a watchlisted article, because another editor may comment before the editor intended to see the comment looks again at his Watchlist. SMP0328. (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the war on terror should be described in this article as long as it is, as you say, compliant with policy. As far as pinging, anyone can respond at any time on this thread. There is no targeted response order. Also, I hope other editors respond on this thread. I wouldn't want this to become a conversation between only two or three editors. I am certain that there are many regulars here who watch this article and its talkpage. I hope they will offer their opinion. Dr. K. 04:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been watching, waiting to chime in. I could have almost left the last attempted edit, if not for the POV wording that you described to that editor. The "known for "Terror Tuesdays"" and such. There should probably be something mentioned here and the POTUS article. NPOV and succinct. Dave Dial (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dave. The points you mentioned were the reason for my involvement in this controversy. Now that it seems these points are cleared up, I can happily leave it to regulars like you to decide the best way forward. Thank you. Dr. K. 04:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yea, you were absolutely right in that edits problems. I'm in no hurry to add anything, and you've done a good job in outlining the problems with the other editors attempts. I'm just adding that I think a small mention with reliable sourcing might improve the article. I'm off to bed now, thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Okaay, this has gone a bit further then I expected... SO, I have not worded the page the way I did because I "support" some one who I have seen once in my life in a video on freaking YouTube. If something's argument is that "his brain is full of bullshit conspiracy ideas", that's cool too, I don't judge anything or nothing for that matter..

Note for the other regular users: say something about his foreign policy regarding counter-terrorism. I don't speak English, so I can only say this: "known for "Terror Tuesdays"". That'd be all. Thank you very much. Alex (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama sidebar

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.

---

Is everyone seeing the Obama sidebar taking up most of the lede? It's sitting next to the infobox instead of below it, and it seems to be squashing the text from the lede into a funnel. Dave Dial (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@DD2K: Yes. I noticed the same thing happening with Franklin D. Roosevelt. Dustin (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: - Yes, I did too. And now strangely both pages seem to be back to normal now, and without edits to the articles or the templates. So whatever it was, it seems fixed. Dave Dial (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

 Not fixed: Dave Dial, the page initially loads correctly with the series template below the infobox. As the page finishes loading, the series template suddenly pops up to the left of the infobox to the same misplaced location as earlier. This is with Google Chrome. The problem persists, at least for some. Dustin (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but I use Chrome(Version 46.0.2490.86 m) and it's ok for me. I also tried Edge, Firefox and Safari. All seem to work. I have Windows 10. Don't know if any of these make the issue ok for me and not others, or a cache needs to be purged, but if the problems persist, the Pump needs to be aware. Thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, no problem here with Chrome and Windows 7 Pro. Tvoz/talk 06:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I am still experiencing the aforementioned problem with Google Chrome, Windows 7 Home Premium. Dustin (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama's birthplace

Troll
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article states that the president was born in Honolulu. Shouldn't it state that he was born in Kenya? Haresandhounds (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Please see Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ#Q5.--JayJasper (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama Nobel prize

From the article:

Obama's Nobel Prize has been viewed skeptically in subsequent years, especially after the director of the Nobel Institute, Geir Lundestad, said Obama's Peace Prize was a "failure"

This suggests that the director of the Nobel Institute feels that Obama is undeserving of the award, while the referenced article actually states that the director expected the honor to deliver a boost to Obama, something he believes did not happen. In other words its a failure of the award to boost Obama, not a failure of Obama as the Wikipedia article seems to suggest.