Talk:Barack Obama

Immigration Policy

Hi all. I added this to the page under the above heading which has now been removed under dubious pretences:

Obama's immigration policy has been criticised as 'the harshest and largest immigration enforcement regime in American history.' Under the Obama administration, it is reported that between 2009 and 2015, a total of 2.5 million people were deported, at a rate above 385,000 between 2009 - 2011 with the highest level of deportations reaching 409,849 in 2012. There was also controversy over the usage of 'Cages That House Immigrant Children at U.S.-Mexico Border' which were first built and used under his term in office.

According to @Snooganssnoogans: it 'pushes a false narrative about Obama implementing the family separation policy.' - Although I'm not sure how, as it is a fact that his administration created the cages and no where in the section did I state that Obama was linked directly to the term 'family separation policy' - the source addresses this and one part states: 'Thomas Homan (who was director of removal operations at ICE under President Obama). Homan had said during a June 21, 2019, panel discussion hosted by the anti-immigration advocacy group Center for Immigration Studies that “‘The kids are being [housed] in the same facility built under the Obama administration. If you want to call them cages, call them cages. But if the left wants to call them cages and the Democrats want to call them cages, then they have to accept the fact that they were built and funded in FY 2015.”

From how I understand it, the cages were built within facilities, with the adults being close to them and reunited quickly after checks. It's not a pretty part of human history, but I wonder if this is a politically motivated removal of facts that even for me were quite the revelation at first to think Obama would do such a thing. Anyway, 'feelings' aside, I wonder if there is consensus as to how my original text could be improved please. For the record, I am not American and don't prefer any US president over any other...well I always had a soft spot for Kennedy. Anyway, Thanks in advance. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A comprehensive and NPOV summary of the Obama administration's policy on immigration is not "CATO called it the harshest immigration policy, and the Obama administration built cages." A comprehensive concise NPOV summary of the Obama adm's immigration policy can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Immigration Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans, How is that comprehensive if it doesn't include constructive criticisms and leaves out the controversy? And why can't there be another 'immigration policy' on his page too, like there are duplicated topics on both? I don't see any debunking of Obama here. Why can the fact that 'Statistically, more people were deported from the U.S. during the administration of President Barack Obama than during that of any other president.' not be included as a pretty important stat? Thanks for the reply.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Hi again, It's been over a week and you cannot justify your revert and your own talk page is marred with similar accusations and is disturbingly riddled with the similar pattern of reverting facts that you can not allow due to disagreeing with it. I have re-written the part since your revert was clearly politically motivated and I have also asked two other wiki editor who seem more objective to weigh in on this matter as, I am sorry but I do not trust your reasons for reverting due to your talk page. Thanks.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

SnooganssnoogansSo again you revert due to 'this is not a neutral concise summary of the Obama adm's immigration policy. a concise neutral summary can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Immigration . you have to seek consensus for this version' - however you still haven't replied to my last comment - but are very quick to appear when a revert needs doing lol. How convenient. Also, not sure you have much legitimacy to talk about being 'neutral' - the link you supplied highlights none of the more controversial aspects of Obama's immigration policy. Hardly 'neutral'. I also see you have no issue with other presidents having their immigration policies controversy pointed out...like Donald Trump...Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained why this is not a neutral concise summary of the Obama adm's immigration policy and gone so far as to show you what a neutral concise summary might look like. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but respectfully I disagree. The summary link you provided isn't neutral and you addressed none of my counter points and I worry about your biases - which otherwise would be none of my business, but I find your talk page record quite alarming, nothing personal against you - but it isn't very welcoming, but nor are the rude remarks made against you. In short - It cannot be neutral if it doesn't convey the constructive criticism and facts that he deported more people than any other president. Note Trumps page IS more neutral because it does convey his controversy. Why can't Obama's do the same? You say I need to seek consensus, but why bother if wiki is more about politically motivated reverts than representing history - both the good and bad bits? I'll wait for others to weigh in - if they agree with you then fair enough I will leave it. Thanks.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also oppose this, as it would appear that you are cherry-picking quotes and sources to contract a narrative that you desire to see, rather than one that reflects what most mainstream sources say about the President and immigration. ValarianB (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What and the current text used isn't cherry picking all the non-controversial aspects then? Did you read any of my points refuting this idea? Do you think that wiki articles should only be defined by 'mainstream' sources? What constitutes a 'mainstream' source by the way? And how is it that the Trump article is allowed (as it should) to mention controversy? Are you not the one cherry picking by stating that only mainstream sources and non-controversial information be applied to wiki articles? I really look forward to your reply lol...Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you think that wiki articles should only be defined by 'mainstream' sources?, the answer to which is unquestionably "yes". If you are unable to identify reliable sources on your own, you may wish to check Wikipedia:Reliable sources. ValarianB (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a shame, very selective answers there, very weak reply - only answer the questions that won't put you off kilter and undermine your argument.'If you are unable to identify reliable sources on your own, you may wish to check' - now you resort to condescension. So non of these sources are reliable or mainstream enough for you?

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-mixed-legacy-immigration

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/enforcement-actions
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/

I think what you mean is - 'none of those sources fit my own political group think narrative'. No offense Valerian, but if you are unable to identify 'reliable' sources on your own (like those above), you may wish to check Wikipedia:Reliable sources to give you a hand - there is a difference between 'mainstream' sources and 'reliable 'sources' that don't have to be mainstream to be reliable. Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If you re-read your citations, you would see that the number of deportations is greater largely due to a redefinition of what it meant to be deported. You are cherry-picking raw numbers and using them to support your own conclusions. That's not going to be allowed. Where we're at here is simple; add this material again, without consensus, and it will likely be reverted. ValarianB (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems unusual that the cages, built under Obama, are highlighteed on Trump's wikipedia page as an outcome of one of his policies. But there's no mention here. 124.157.73.108 (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

Obama has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers. (This is almost identical to a statement on Donald Trump's Wikipedia page.) Fact-checker source is https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?category=&ruling=false&speaker=barack-obama

I believe this should be added to Obama's page to even out the egregious and obvious bias of Wikipedia contributors/editors. Alexanderth3hgr8 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Note the frequency of Obama's fact-check fails in the link you provided: Four in 2014, one in 2013, a dozen or so in 2012. Compare that with Trump, who fails scores of fact checks in every speech. That's why we say that Trump (but not Obama, or pretty much any other president) "has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency". All politicians make some "false or misleading statements", but we only point it out for Trump - because he is off the charts. And before you say "bias!", note that we don't say it about any other Republican politician either. Trump's mendacity is unique. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Citizenship section for template

in special:diff/982279214 it was requested by user:cullen328 I pursue consensus before restoring the section.

template:infobox officeholder does not include an explanation of all it's sections (including this one) so template:infobox person can be useful there. It explains:

Should only be used if citizenship differs from the value in |nationality= and cannot be inferred from the birthplace.

This much is true since only Obama's American citizenship can be inferred by his birthplace. He has has in the past had bloodline nationality (if not necessarily citizenship.. blurred lines) citizenship in Britain/Kenya/Commonwealth during his youth which all expired due to him not renouncing American citizenship (Kenyan citizenship automatically lost if you don't renounce, don't allow dual citizenship).

I'm thinking cullen328 could be objecting because I might have misclassified BPP as citizenship when it might've been more appropriate as 'nationality' since BPP were subject to British jurisdiction and protection but did not have voting rights AFAIK. Same might be true of Commonwealth Citizenship since CW members don't vote in leaders of commonwealth but enjoy protections. I don't know where it would fall in Kenyan terms. If it's about voting rights then arguably children don't become citizens until voting age, until then they would effectively nationals. WakandaQT (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this obscure information about possible UK/Kenyan citizenship during his childhood does not belong in the infobox, which should not be packed with trivia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

War crimes and murder of civilians (state terrorism) omission

How is it that this article does not even mention the war crimes committed by Obama in Afghanistan and the criticism of the internationally illegal drone strike program that bombed and murderered a tremendous amount of civilians? This is quite an incredible amount of whitewashing.PailSimon (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Per guidance like WP:LENGTH we don't put everything about a big topic in the same article, that would be a bad idea (see Category:Barack Obama). You can find a sentence or two about it at Drone strikes in Pakistan, which is connected to articles like Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and War on terror.

But you are welcome to make a suggestion like "I propose that we add this text in this section cited to these WP:RS." Consider WP:PROPORTION, others might. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You would think that a president committing crimes that had they been committed by others would land them in the Hague is worth mentioning. PailSimon (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I would, PailSimon. So why don't you take up Gråbergs Gråa Sång's invitation? (You'll have to cite good sources, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of excellent sources available at Kunduz hospital airstrike for example.PailSimon (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Then you are free to use them, PailSimon. -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

Someone vandalized Obama’s middle name again. 2601:643:380:5040:28FC:239E:51A2:87EC (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)