Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.7.105.10 (talk) at 18:17, 30 October 2013 (→‎Article is self-contradicting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation


Featured articleBarack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 10, 2009Featured article reviewKept
March 16, 2010Featured article reviewKept
June 17, 2012Featured article reviewKept
October 22, 2012Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

Template:Stable version


Article is self-contradicting

WP:NOTAFORUM :)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In one section of this article, reference is made to the fact that Mr. Obama publicly supports same-sex marriage. In another section, the article states that he claims to be a devout Christian. This is contradictory. One cannot be a devout Christian and support same sex marriage; devout Christians follow the Bible, and the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin. Please change one of these statements. 173.49.201.12 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article states he believes he is a devout Christian. Your interpretations do not figure into the matter. --NeilN talk to me 01:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as our IP editor is attacking Obama, I could perhaps draw the "logical" conclusion that 173.49.201.12 is an irrational bigot, but being my opinion alone, it couldn't go in any article either. Such synthesis is inappropriate here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say devout Christians should have Matthew 7:1 in mind, and, of course, Matthew 15:11 explicitly endorses all variants of oral sex (or so says my particular Bible interpretation). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible explicitly states you can't eat shrimp or wear clothes made of two different fabrics. Meanwhile it endorses rape, genocide and slavery. I'm guessing 173.x wouldn't call Obama a sinner for ignoring these aspects of the Bible. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generalisations of a religious bigot countered by generalisations that make no distinction of Old and New Testament. Classy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.121.151 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barak Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and that does not constitute he is an African American. If this article is using African American to distinguish skin color, then he is black. Referring to him as an African American has no factual base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.83.69 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be born in Africa to be called an African American. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's introduction calls Barack Obama "the first African American to hold the office [of President of the United States]. Yet his mother was white, so he is half-African American, often colloquially referred to as "mixed," "mixed-race," or in some places (though many consider the term obsolete for reasons of political correctness) "Mulatto". I propose that the introduction should describe him as the first "half black" or "half African American" president (allegations about Warren G. Harding notwithstanding). 207.7.105.10 (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)NZ[reply]

Obama catches pregnant woman

WP:DNFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Watch and read the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10395183/Barack-Obama-catches-fainting-pregnant-woman-during-Obamacare-speech.html

I would say this is significant, historical event. Should be included in the main article, embed the video also! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.138.148 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Individual mandate

Forgive me if this has already been discussed in the archives, but didn't Obama oppose the individual mandate during his presidential campaign, or at least semi-oppose it? This seems highly notable. Perhaps someone with more knowledge and interest in the subject can address it. OckRaz mentioned it in PPACA; I reverted because it seemed out of place, but it would seem to belong somewhere in Barack Obama. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a notification that I was mentioned here. FWIW, I don't think Obama's reversal on the individual mandate belongs on the pg for his bio as DrFleischman suggests. However, I did and do think it belongs on the PPACA pg for two reasons: #1) in describing the origin and legislative history of the PPACA, editors have used a great deal of space to make the point that the individual mandate should be considered a Republican concept that Republicans abandoned - which is somewhat misleading (a. because while it had GOP advocates it was never adopted by the party and there were always GOP opponents of it, b. context matters so that offering it as an alternative to a single payer plan is less than an endorsement for opponents of single payer, c. context also matters if you pass a law on the state level to avoid losing a massive infusion of federal money after trying to veto a mandate & d. many consider the 'fine vs penalty vs tax vs deduction vs rebate' question [different kinds of carrots & sticks] to so be important that there's not universal agreement about what qualifies as a mandate), but at this point the nuance free narrative - that the mandate was something the Republican party advocated right up until the moment Obama wanted it - has become folk wisdom & #2) if you're going to devote multiple paragraphs to a diffuse (spread through a collective) reversal that took place over 20 years, you can't just devote one or two lines to a reversal in the opposite direction by the man elected president with this policy change as a priority. That's especially true when that reversal occurred within months and one position was used to attack one's opponents as a candidate and the other adopted after taking office. Were any Republicans elected by voters who thought they were supporting a candidate who would enact an individual mandate, only to reverse their position once in office? Unless one has an agenda, a slow partial reversal within a group opposing a policy can't be more noteworthy than a quick complete reversal on the part of the single individual most responsible for the final policy. OckRaz talk 12:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that changing one's stance on issues needs to be detailed in a biography, given how common it is in the political realm. The individual mandate was once strongly pushed by Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation, for example. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure it's as common as you suggest, and certainly not on such a notable issue. If I recall correctly the individual mandate was a key distinction between the Obama and HRC platforms in the 2008 primary and was heavily debated, saying nothing of the attention it's received since 2010. Accordingly it's received quite a bit of attention in the reliable sources. A VERY quick search revealed [4], [5], [6] just on the first page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obama changed his stance on _many_ positions as part of the normal process of finding agreement between the two political parties and invested interests. In the case of the individual mandate, Obama reluctantly consented to this Republican idea in order to get insurance companies to absorb customers with prexisting conditions and lower premiums. This really isn't a big deal, and certainly not biographically significant enough to be in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources disagree with you, no? I'm not saying we need a whole section on this issue, or even a paragraph; just a sentence in the "2008 presidential campaign" paragraph. In fact, this section is somewhat misleading as currently written as it says his campaign "emphasized ... providing universal health care." While I believe he did talk about "universal health care" his position was not only more complex than this but also a subject of considerable controversy and media attention during primary season. I suppose what I'm saying is that we have a small WP:BALANCE problem. We don't have to say that Obama changed his views on the mandate; that would be parroting the talking points of his detractors. I'm talking about a single sentence that accurately summarizes the position he took on the mandate during his campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one isn't close, there's no biographical significance even if true. The material, duly sourced and presented as fact rather than an attempt to show a Presidential shortcoming, probably belongs in one or more articles specifically relating to the Affordable Care Act, American health care policy, perhaps the political positions or second administration of Obama, etc. It probably is in those articles already but it may be worth taking a look. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being flexible and able to make effective compromises is the sign of an effective politician. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but not relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled that consensus is apparently against me. My only explanation, borne out by Wikidemon and HiLo48's comments, is that there's a concerted effort to protect the subject of the article. If this is true, then it's based on an assumption that my proposal is designed as an attack on the subject of the article. That's hardly the case, but whatever. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In your opening post you made the point that this change in position is "highly notable". If it's simply the sign of being a skilled politician, is it really that notable? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems notable to me, and the issue is notable for other reasons as well. Not least of which is that the president who who championed and signed one of the most significant pieces of legislation in our lifetimes had a change of heart about one of the most noteworthy (and certainly the most controversial) provision in that legislation. And aside from the notability issue, as I explained above the article as currently written is actually misleading, but none of you care about that. Apparently neutrality takes a back seat to "biographical significance." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did he really have a change of heart, or did he just make the necessary compromise? I don't know the answer. Nor do you. To continue this discussion requires a level of assumption and interpretation we should not be making. If you can find an independent reliable source that makes a declaration on this point, perhaps we can take it further. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change of heart, compromise, whatever, it doesn't matter. Like I said, I'm not proposing putting in a statement saying anything about a change of heart, so there's no need for a reliable source on that point. I'm not even saying there should be statement saying he changed his position, for which I already provided the three reliable sources above (and I'm sure there are more). I'm simply proposing a statement that he opposed the individual mandate during his 2008 presidential campaign. That's all. This isn't controversial stuff, folks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not notable. Every politician has a number of positions that they change over their political life, either because things change or just for political expediency. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=579503878"