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)

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)

I don't have a strong opinion about whether the content warrants inclusion, but there are at least four problems with the response to the suggestion to include Obama's comments about "fake outrage" and "culture wars" during the historic Virginia 2021 election (in which the candidate that Obama endorsed and campaigned for, Terry McAuliffe, lost surprisingly to Republican Glenn Youngkin in a blue state that Biden won only the year before). The topic is deemed "not significant enough" and represented as "only [covered] in right wing sources". But, the topic is at least worthy of talk discussion, because:

1. it's not true that only "right-wing" sources covered it,
2. we don't evaluate sources only by whether they are "right wing", rather by whether they are deemed reliable by Wikipedia, or need attribution as opinion,
3. the google search provided did not include the more useful keyword "culture wars", and
4. even if only "right-wing" sources cover a story, WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia

   represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all …

In the US, conservatives do not represent a minority, much less a "tiny minority", and the issue was not only covered by conservative sources, but was also well covered by non-conservative sources.

See WP:RSP on The Atlantic, Axios, Bloomberg, Fox News, WP:VANITYFAIR and others.

• The Atlantic and Vanity Fair (not "right-wing sources") [5] specifically cover Obama’s role in the historic Virginia 2021 elections:

  Youngkin’s victory is a kind of road map that other Republicans can use to run successful campaigns over the coming years. To respond effectively, Democrats will have to stop dismissing concerns over curricular “fake outrage.”

  Of note: the “fake outrage” link goes to the Vanity Fair article about Obama's Virginia campaign statements relating to “fake outrage”, and The Atlantic specifically singles this out as a factor in the elections.

• Washington Post, a prominent and very liberal source, whose editorial board singles out Obama for the Virginia issue: [6]

  Apparently, moms and dads don't like being called terrorists. Nor do they appreciate it when former president Barack Obama shows up at a rally for McAuliffe and accuses them of "fake outrage" and stoking "phony, trumped-up culture wars".

• Washington Post [7]

  Former president Barack Obama delivered a full-throated endorsement of Virginia's Democratic ticket here Saturday, describing the election next month as determining the future of the state and setting an example for the nation. … Obama also slammed the Republican for fanning "phony trumped-up culture wars" by stoking conservative anger over what's taught in public schools.

• NBC News, (not a “right-wing source”) [8]:

  Pence criticized former President Barack Obama who said recently while campaigning for McAuliffe that voters should ignore the "fake outrage" and "phony trumped-up culture wars" being promoted on the right, particularly as it relates to the education system. The "outrage isn't fake, it's real," Pence said. "And it's grounded in love for this country and their kids."

• Salon.com, (not a "right-wing source"): [9]:

  Obama also attacked Youngkin for focusing on manufactured outrage over school curricula. "We don't have time to be wasting on these phony trumped-up culture wars, this fake outrage that right-wing media peddles to juice their ratings," he said Saturday. "And the fact that he's willing to go along with it, instead of talking about serious problems that actually affect serious people. That's a shame."

• Bloomberg, (not a "right-wing source") [10]:

  Former President Barack Obama waded into Virgina’s gubernatorial race, criticizing Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin for supporting “phony, trumped-up culture wars” in his bid to flip the state.

• Rollcall [11]

  What’s more, as McAuliffe’s lead steadily slipped away, top Democrats flashed an inability or unwillingness to take concerns over school curriculum, critical race theory and other matters seriously. “We don’t have time to be wasted on these phony trumped-up culture wars, this fake outrage the right-wing media peddles to juice their ratings,” former President Barack Obama said while campaigning in Virginia on Oct. 23.

• The New Yorker magazine (not a "right wing source") [12] broadly covered Obama's speech in Virginia.
• Axios [13]

  The Virginia governor's race has drawn attention even from former President Obama for the presence of what he called "phony culture wars" and "fake outrage" from the right-wing political and media sphere.

Summary: plenty of non-"right wing" reliable sources covered the topic, I haven't even listed all the conservative coverage, which is broad, but even if the sources were only conservative, conservatives do not represent a "tiny minority" so NPOV says we should include these viewpoints, and Obama's position vis-a-vis a historical election in which the candidate he campaigned for lost rather rather noticeably seems worthy of mention, as Obama was also singled out by left-wing sources as having missed the boat on this one.

This exclusion of information based on "only right wing sources" is ironic in an article that seems to have no problem using WP:HUFFPOST (see Politics entry), or using sources like Politico and The Hill for the post-presidential section, or including a rental home in the Post-presidential section, where this content would fit (The family currently rents a house in Kalorama, Washington, D.C.), among other examples of what looks like uneven application of standards for inclusion here. And, there is already a sentence in post-Presidential about wokeness and cancel culture, where one little sentence about a glaring Virginia fail would fit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 26 November 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

Obama was first elected in 2009. 96.246.90.202 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Your request is not clear. Obama was first elected President in 2008, but was inaugurated as President in 2009. Acroterion (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)