Talk:Barack Obama

Hiroshima Speech

The article says the bombing of Hiroshima ended ww2, but it didn't end until some days after the second bomb was dropped. Shall I just get rid of "that ended World War II."? Netanyahuserious (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: "Japan surrendered to the Allies on 15 August, six days after the Soviet Union's declaration of war and the bombing of Nagasaki." How about "71 years after the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, near the end of World War II."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That sounds much better. Netanyahuserious (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

And, was there Speech regarding the victims of COVID 19( US Americans). NetanyahuseriousNr2 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea, but if there is, it probably won't fit the "Presidency (2009–2017)" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021

Typos and missing words in post presidency section. "Endorsed" missing. "Minister" misspell.

Current:

On October 16, 2019, five days ahead of the Canadian federal election, Obama publicly Canadian Prime Miniter Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party for re-election 68.162.104.119 (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for alerting us. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Already done by HiLo48 Elli (talk | contribs) 04:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Post-presidency section and FAR

Hi watch page editors: at this article's FAR, it was commented that the Post-presidency section was bloated. I agree with that statement. In an effort to WP:BEBOLD, I am conducting a copyedit of that section to remove things that I perceive as off-topic or too much detail. I am not well versed in previous discussions about this article, and I will probably remove things that others find important. Please feel free to put information back into the article that I remove, but if you do so please make a note of it below so that it can be discussed further. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As I conducted my copyedit, I noticed some statements that I hope others can help me with. Please see below:

• "The family currently rents a house in Kalorama, Washington, D.C." Per WP:PRECISELANG Wikipedia wants to avoid words like "currently" as it can become dated. Does the family still rent this house?
• This section has a lot of information about Obama's endorsements after leaving office. Should this stay as necessary information to understand Obama's biography, or is it too much detail and should be removed or trimmed down? I think the only endorsement that should stay is the 2020 endorsement for Joe Biden, since it is a US political endorsement.
• "Obama intends for the foundation to be the central focus of his post-presidency and part of his ambitions for his subsequent activities following his presidency to be more consequential than his time in office" This does not feel like encyclopedic language, as it does not describe specific goals or initiatives that the foundation is undertaking. Can it be removed or reworded?
• "On September 1, 2018, Obama and his wife Michelle Obama, along with former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and their spouses attended the funeral of Sen. John McCain of Arizona at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. On December 5, 2018, Obama and his wife attended the funeral of former president George H. W. Bush, along with former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and then-President Donald Trump and their spouses. " Both of these sentences need citations.
• "On October 29, 2019, Obama criticized "wokeness" and call-out culture at the Obama Foundation's annual summit." I think this is too much detail. Anyone object to its removal?
• "In early December 2020, Obama criticized the "defund the police" slogan, claiming that it could derail social justice activists' attempts at making change and that "you lost a big audience the minute you say it."" Is this necessary in the article, or is it too much detail?
• Is the Nov/Dec. 2017 international trip necessary for this article, or can it be removed for being too much detail?
• I think the May/June commencement speech section is too large, and perhaps can be cut or trimmed. Thoughts?

I look forward to reading your comments. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Right Wing Fake Outrage

you need to put in something about Obama's comments about a real case of sexual assault that he called fake outrage. On Monday, juvenile court judge Pamela Brooks ruled that the boy - who has not been named - did force himself on the 15-year-old girl on May 28 in the bathroom at Stone Ridge High School in Leesburg, Virginia. He needs to aplolige to parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.27.9 (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Any source for this? Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Not significant enough for the article. There's been a little commentary - "outrage" - about his comment, but only in right-wing sources like the New York Post. Here is a sample. But there has not been enough or widespread enough coverage for this article. BTW he was not talking about the particular incident; he was talking generically about "these phony trumped-up culture wars, this fake outrage that right-wing media peddles to juice their ratings." That Virginia incident had nothing to do with bathroom gender or other trans issues as the Republicans are trying to make it. The girl herself says the two of them had deliberately met in the girls room for sex twice before, but this time he forced her, presumably to do things she didn't want to do. That's a crime and the guy should pay for it. But it had nothing to do with the right-wing concern about who should use what bathroom.[4] -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

"Neutrality disputed"? Sez who?

A "neutrality disputed" tag was recently added to the article by User:X-Editor. The tag says that "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page". This is the talk page; where is the discussion? What is being challenged so seriously as to need a neutrality tag?

The edit summary that went with this tag referenced the Wikipedia:Featured article review. I took a look at that discussion. Most of it has to do with bloat and attempts to trim the size of the article, focused on the suggestion to split out a separate Post-presidency article. There are also a few (two) comments pointing out instances of possible imbalance or unnecessary detail. Those corrections can be made and some have already been made; FAs do get tweaked as needed. But I don't see any justification for disfiguring a Featured Article with such a tag, which casts a pall of doubt over the whole page - a page which is viewed tens of thousands of times a day. I especially object to it given the absence of any such objection or discussion here at the talk page. I would like to see the tag removed, and I solicit other people's opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I thought it might have been necessary since concerns were raised, but discussion is still ongoing, so I've decided to remove the tag. X-Editor (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem, hopefully the issues are sorted out in the review. X-Editor (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)