Talk:Barack Obama

Certificate of Live Birth

On Obama's Certificate of Live Birth (which does differ from a birth certificate), it says he was born in hawaii. There are no cites on this page to where he was born from or certificate of live birth pictures on the page.

First sentence of lead

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.

---

The first sentence of the lead describes Obama as both ‘the 44th and current President of the United States’ and ‘the first African American to hold the office’. Should this latter description be moved elsewhere in the lead so that the first sentence focuses solely on Obama’s political position? As a quick comparison, the Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher articles mention their subjects’ social notability (being the first black and first woman leader respectively) in the second sentence, but leave aside the first one to focus on what they achieved, irrespective of race or sex. 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Response

• Close The IP (no doubt a sock of someone) has opened numerous unnecessary RFCs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • RFC tag removed per AN/I discussion; this page has enough eyes on it. No opinion on the proposal but leaning towards agreeing with it. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The suggestion is sensible at first blush.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the contentious history of race relations in the United States...particularly African-American history from the slave trade through the Civil Rights era...IMO being the first African-American president is a critical aspect of Obama's biography, and deserves first-sentence prominence. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

But Obama is technically only half African-American, because his mother is white. So a better description would be Mulatto, since he's half white, half black. Look at his parents. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is a flat circle... —Designate (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"Half African-American" isn't even a thing, reads up on what the term actually means sometime. As for mulatto, that is a slur on par with the n-word. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Then how about "mixed" or "biracial"? He is literally half of both, literally. The president's African look is simply more dominant, in which case the judging is based on his skin color only. But does race even matter in the 1st place? How about saying "descent" and acknowledging Obama's white side too? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

He's African-American. He's also biracial, of mixed race, multiracial, son of a Black African and a White American, etc. Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. That's not the question here, but rather whether it's worth mentioning in the first sentence that he's America's first black President or whether to save that for later in the lede. As for what he's first at, he's first of a lot of things, first President from Hawaii, etc. With only 44 presidencies before, every one is going to be first at a lot of stuff. Not a big sample size. Personally, although at the time and in foresight having a non-white President is a huge step for America, in hindsight, as race becomes less of a hinderance to achievement one would expect, it becomes less and less of a defining characteristic. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying Obama is not white, but black. I still think we should acknowledge his other half. Not necessarily in the first sentence but later in the lead. Keep in mind that there are also European Americans and White Americans, which Obama is literally half of. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you're too lazy to read the FAQ, Supersaiyen312, it says that Wikipedia defines the whole issue of Barack Obama's race by self-identification: Obama says he is African-American. End of story.

Not to mention the vast majority of reliable sources agree on this.--67.68.160.163 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely with Tarc on this. The history of race in America - the continuing history - makes his election and re-election utterly extraordinary, and is absolutely a defining characteristic of his life story, which this article is telling. This is so notable that I believe it is necessary to be in the first sentence, and even if there are subsequent African American presidents in the near future, his being the first will always be a great deal more notable than the fact that he is the first from Hawaii. Tvoz/talk 04:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If anyone´s interested, how african american Barack Obama really is is being discussed again at the African American article. [4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz above. The most notable (among other notable things) of the Obama presidency is his election and reelection as an African-American. To contend otherwise is to be (suspiciously) disingenuous. Juan Riley (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk, talk and more talk, but the fact is not what Obama (or some of these Talk entries) want you to believe --- it is what is factual that is important, and it is a FACT that he is the first biracial President. Maybe someday the United States will have an African-American or even a Mongoloid-American President, but today we have our first Biracial President. Sirswindon (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Lol. "Mongoloid-American". Inventing that word is a beautiful way to show that what one is saying is utter nonsense.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of America sees Obama as mixed race, not black. So (in my opinion) it should be changed to non-white or mixed race President, or just leave the racial aspect out entirely in the lead. I guess the definition of 'African-American' varies, but I personally don't see Obama as a black man. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2014 (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.

Hobby Lobby decision missing from Health care reform section

The current version of the Health care section looks like everything ended in 2012. At the close of the current Supreme Court session, the Hobby Lobby case was decided and should be included in this section to avoid the appearance of being an oversight. I have introduced two versions now (User:Scjessey said the first version was too long), and one of the two versions in either shorter or longer form should be retained; otherwise the section gives the impression to readers that nothing occurred since 2012 according to Wikipedia, and that the 2014 Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision influencing the Health care plan did not take place. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Since that section already refers to one Supreme Court decision, so a sentence about Burwell v. Hobby Lobby would seem appropriate. SMP0328. (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with User:SMP0328, since both HiLo48 and Scjessey felt the 3 sentence version was too long. The one sentence version looks like this: The only major challenge to Obama's health care plan following 2012 came in 2014 when Burwell v. Hobby Lobby became a landmark decision limiting Obama's health care plan by the United States Supreme Court which directly struck down Obama's contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Possibly this one sentence version can be applied to fit. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this?

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a Health and Human Services regulation adopted under the Affordable Care Act, requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees.

This wording is about the same length of the other case-citing sentence in that part of the article and clearly explains what was decided in Hobby Lobby. SMP0328. (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Good brevity and my slight amendation would suggest adding Obama's name in the first part of the sentence to: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Supreme Court ruled to limit Obama's contraceptive mandate, under the RFRA, and to allow for-profit corporations to be exempt from...(rest of User:SMP0328 wording). If this works, or something close, then I'm inclined to support it. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think referring to that mandate as being "Obama's" would result in POV issues. We should not make this personal. The sentence should simply refer to the Hobby Lobby decision with a brief description. SMP0328. (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of that stuff is appropriate for this article. It is simply not a significant biographical detail in the life of Barack Obama. These are matters concerning the Obama presidency and SCOTUS. We should be cutting down some of the detail in this summary style article, not adding to it. Also, as mentioned by SMP0328, the Affordable Care Act was an act of Congress. The legislative branch makes the laws. Obama simply signed it. Calling it "Obama's" is incredibly non-neutral, even if the law was created at his urging. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the sentence you propose should be added. It's a significant ruling and neutral. I would have removed the two other attempts too, but not SMP0328's proposal. Dave Dial (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Three editors (SMP0328, DD2K, HiLo48) state that the 3 sentence version is too long. Preference appears to be for a one sentence version. The one sentence version presented by SMP0328 is meant to end the paragraph starting with the words, "The law faced several legal challenges, primarily based on...," which after the proposed added sentence should probably read as "The law faced several legal challenges, one of which was based on..." Then the one sentence addition of SMP0328 could be added to the end of that paragraph as: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Supreme Court ruled to limit part of the health care mandate, under the RFRA, and to allow for-profit corporations to be exempt from...(rest of User:SMP0328 wording). If such a one sentence version is closer to agreement then I am for supporting it. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

- I think the last line of that section should be: "Obama signed the bill into law on March 23, 2010." Everything after that should be deleted, because (a) it exists in other articles (to which this article links), and (b) it concerns the legislation and not Barack Obama specifically. Again, this is a summary style article, and we must strive for the concise. This is just one of several sections where topics have been expanded into too much detail. Moreover, this SCOTUS ruling is a narrowly-specified event. It only impacts the employees of closely-held companies whose owners have religious objections, which is a small number of Americans compared to the scope of the ACA itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

President Obama fought for the passage of the ACA. He did not merely sign the legislation. Even the President has occasionally referred to the law as "Obamacare". Do you believe President Obama has had little or no role in the implementation of the ACA? SMP0328. (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. But the first part of that section is more than sufficient coverage in a summary style article. Anything beyond that should be decanted into the Presidency of Barack Obama article and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. Covering the minutiae of one piece of legislation in this biography is excessive. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy of this closing paragraph in the Health care section should be consistent throughout in its coverage of judicial challenges. Hobby Lobby is receiving a majority weight recognition in the mainstream press as being a Landmark decision for the 2014 term. Referring to it as "minutiae" does not seem to fully recognize this. Support for a one sentence version of a Landmark decision as suggested by SMP0328 would accurately describe the Judicial response to the Health care legislation supported by Obama. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point entirely. It is a landmark decision for SCOTUS because it has far-reaching implications beyond healthcare, but in terms of the Obama presidency and the Affordable Care Act, it is a minor detail of little biographical significance. The SCOTUS decision about the individual mandate was a key decision for the entire Affordable Care Act that could've potentially ended the legislation and impacted millions and millions of Americans, whereas the Hobby Lobby decision only impacts a few thousand Americans working for a few religious fundamentalists. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The current tally appears to be 3 support for a one sentence version of the edit and 1 oppose. Obama as President of the executive branch means that he needs to be responsible for constant interaction with both other branches of government, the Judicial branch and the Legislative branch. A landmark decision for SCOTUS from the Judicial branch affecting the health care plan which President Obama signed onto appears justified for 3 editors for inclusion here. Unless new editors are added here on talk, it seems practical to suggest that the one sentence version be added now that several days have passed. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a vote. It's about reaching a meaningful consensus. Since this article is meant to be written from an historical perspective, there is no urgency whatsoever. Certainly there is no need for a veiled ultimatum. You have failed to address my points about the weight of what you are calling a landmark decision, and about the section being too detailed for a summary style biography in the first place. Again, I must point out that this will have very little impact on the Affordable Care Act, since we are talking about a tiny percentage of the Americans covered by the legislation. Seen from that historical perspective, I doubt very much this will be the Enormous Big Thing™ you are portraying it to be. Since we don't have the benefit of being able to peer into the future, it would seem we can afford to take our time and be cautious. Your additions have been twice reverted (yes, it's 3-2, not 3-1) so I expect there to be much more communication on this matter before any editing to the article takes place. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly not a vote. Though it does reflect the general consensus over the past few days. No one is any longer supporting the 3 sentence version of this edit from several days ago. The general consensus appears to be that adding the one sentence version accurately reflects the state of the Health care reform following Hobby Lobby. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

While it's not a vote, neither does any editor have a veto. Since all editors taking part in this discussion, except for Scjessey, believe a one-sentence explanation of Hobby Lobby belongs in this article, it is for Scjessey to move closer to the consensus. Consensus does not require unanimity. SMP0328. (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What, specifically, is being proposed? I'd have to see it in context. I'm sympathetic to the undue weight argument, as people often want to add a too-long description of the issue of the moment into the article. The Hobby Lobby decision may or may not be a major issue in health care insurance law, religious freedom, corporate powers, and so on, but it is only a modestly important event vis-a-vis the biography of the President because the nexus is limited. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is for a one-sentence description of the Hobby Lobby decision coming immediately after the one-sentence description of the Sebelius decision. The ACA is personally linked with Obama, which is why supporters and opponents of the ACA commonly refer to it as "Obamacare". Because of that personal link, Supreme Court decisions regarding the ACA should be referenced in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a final version of the proposed sentence? I can't really form a meaningful opinion whether that's too long, too short, or just right without seeing the sentence. I know there's some talk of it earlier in the thread but it's not clear to me what the (approximate) language would be. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The last one sentence version being examined for addition as described above appears to be something like this, subject to further comment/update as needed: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), the Supreme Court ruled to limit part of the health care mandate, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and to allow for-profit corporations to be exempt from a Health and Human Services regulation adopted under the Affordable Care Act, requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A close call. On the one hand, that's too much real estate in proportion to the issue's significance to Obama's bio. On the other hand, omitting this case would render the paragraph's lead sentence misleading, "The law faced several legal challenges" (by omitting a significant legal challenge it could create the false impression that the article mentioned all the significant challenges). Here's my best attempt to shorten the description in a way while still suggesting what the case is about, and further, "In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Court ruled that for-profit corporations were exempt on religious grounds under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from regulations adopted under the ACA that would have required them to pay for insurance that covered certain contraceptives" (not: no need to include wikilinks for terms wikilinked earlier in the article. An alternative is to mention the case without describing it, e.g.: "The Court, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, exempted for-profit companies from covering contraceptives if the companies had religious objections." An interested reader can follow the link to learn more. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a close call, and the court didn't include any for profit corporation, only "closely held". However that is supposed to be defined. I can see the undue and the need to add. It really isn't a significant ruling in the bog picture. Dave Dial (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidemon and Dave Dial - What of my thoughts about the section being too long already? Much of this doesn't seem biographically significant to me. - Scjessey (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The enhanced version of the one sentence Hobby Lobby edit following option one from User:Wikidemon appears to be the following for current comment/updating:

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Court ruled that "closely-held" for-profit corporations could be exempt on religious grounds under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from regulations adopted under the PPACA that would have required them to pay for insurance that covered certain contraceptives.

Following the edit suggestion made, the acronym used is PPACA for Patient Protection and ACA which is the full name of the Act to which a link has also been added. The previous paragraphs in the Health care section can also use the same acronym to save word space there as well. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to "save word space". It isn't the number of words that is causing the undue weight, but rather the fact that we are considering covering it at all. This is simply the wrong article for this level of detail. In any case, the sentence is inaccurate because it fails to say "closely-held". It currently gives the impression that all for-profit corporations could have religious exemption grounds. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The current support-oppose summary appears to be 5 support for a one sentence version of the edit and 1 oppose. This is the latest version of the one sentence edit: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Court ruled that "closely-held" for-profit corporations could be exempt on religious grounds under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from regulations adopted under the PPACA that would have required them to pay for insurance that covered certain contraceptives. Unless new editors are added here on talk, it seems practical to suggest that the one sentence version be added after another day or two. There were over one thousand editors who examined it yesterday (see page count for Talk here) and the next day or two should give them or any other editor an opportunity to make any further suggestions/upgrades as needed for the one sentence edit. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't offered a compelling reason why we need to go to so much detail about an obscure detail impacting a tiny fraction of Americans. Once again, you have set an ultimatum with an arbitrary time limit. You do not have a consensus for your addition, despite your fudged voting numbers. You've completely ignored my suggestion that the section be cut down, rather than made even more detailed and redundant. I shall revert your edit and I will expect you to seek a proper consensus instead of acting so inappropriately. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 617857598. This editor is not familiar with the principle of 1 editor reverting against 4 editors who are in consensus on Talk page. You are required to make consensus on Talk prior to reverts by Wikipedia policy. You have no support on Talk. No-one knows which Wikipedia rules you are applying to revert against 4 editors who have spoken plainly on the topic. You may start with the following four editors:

(1) ThisEditor: The majority weight in the mainstream press is that Hobby Lobby is a landmark decision of SCOTUS.

(2) Wikidemon: The final edit chosen was that presented by editor (2) directly above as a shorter version of the one sentence edit.

(3) DD2K: It is a landmark decision.

(4) SMP0328. You are a single editor lacking consensus and it is up to you to come closer to consensus.

You are drawing attention to yourself as to what rules of Wikipedia you are using to revert against 4 editors who are in general agreement on this edit and whom you are opposing. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Your Wikipedia inexperience, and inexperience on this topic in particular, is probably to blame here. We have a longstanding policy of seeking a proper consensus on this talk page before making controversial edits to this article. If you'd spent the better part of 7 years editing this article and contributing to hundreds and hundreds of consensus building discussion here, I'm sure you would see your mistake. You are claiming you have the support of other editors, but looking back on this discussion that is not clear at all. You have also ignored other editors who support my view. Repeatedly stating things does not somehow give them more weight. Consider the following:

1. While there is no doubt that Hobby Lobby is a "landmark decision" for SCOTUS, it is most certainly not a significant biographical detail for Barack Obama. You have repeatedly ignored this incredibly obvious fact. In fact, it can be argued that it is not even that significant for the Affordable Care Act; however, I have repeatedly stated that it is worthy of inclusion in both Presidency of Barack Obama and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
2. Wikidemon expressed a preference for the shorter text over the longer text. He has yet to comment on whether or not it should be there at all, or if (as I think) the section is already too long and detailed for a summary style biography.
3. The same can be said for DD2K and SMP0328.

This discussion has not concluded. You have, once again, jumped the gun. You have ignored WP:CONSENSUS, WP:3RR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SS and other policies and guidelines. You should self-revert and let this discussion play out the way they have always done. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to trivial to mention. The reason the decision is notable in reliable sources is that it may allow fundamentalists exemption from other federal laws, as yet undetermined, but that has little to do with executive powers. TFD (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point, TFD. The notable part of this ruling isn't actually biographically relevant at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What is relevant is that the ACA, one of Obama's pieces of signature legislation, has faced numerous court challenges and has among some favorable outcomes received a number of adverse rulings and some division among the federal circuit courts. We should either attempt a summary, briefly list all significant ones, or say that we are listing a few examples. It would be most helpful to readers in my opinion to either list them all, however briefly, or point to a place that does. The present introductory sentence, "the law faced several legal challenges", followed by an incomplete list, could easily be misinterpreted to suggest that the list is complete. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you not thing the section is already too long? I feel strongly that the legal challenges et al should be confined to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and/or Presidency of Barack Obama. Legal challenges to legislation aren't really of any biographical significance. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this - I also think this section is getting too long and this material is not biographically significant. This belongs in the ACA article for sure, and makes sense to have it in the Presidency article too, as it does have an impact on his Presidency, but not on his life. The legislation itself obviously belongs here but not all of the details about the legal challenges. Pointers suffice. Tvoz/talk 03:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Obama: Great President or Greatest President?

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.

---

Where can we add this question to the article? Teetotaler 30 July, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere. 1) Questions don't appear in articles. 2) The analysis of Obama's performance should not be a product of WP:RECENTISM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:NPOV.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This has to be a joke... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.70.175 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a reference to a recurring bit from the Colbert Report, in which Stephen Colbert (in his persona as a right-wing talk-show host) asked his guests whether George W. Bush was a "great President? Or the greatest President?" When the guests would demur by pointing out some aspect of Bush's abysmal record of failure and incompetence, Colbert would regretfully inform them that those two choices were the only ones available. I'd assume that the original poster is suggesting, obliquely, that he finds this article biased in favor of Obama. Or maybe he's just having fun. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 30 July 2014 (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.

Cult of personality

Would this be the appropriate article to mention and/or link the assertions recently added at Cult of personality#United States that the Obama presidency is a cult of personality, or is that information better suited to either the Presidency, or perhaps the Public image, article? 2600:1006:B11F:927A:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Recently added? It has been even more recently removed, with a request that it be discussed on that article's Talk page. Let's await that development. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Senate votes to sue Obama

Reported by the BBC, Obama becomes the first president to be sued by the Senate. Possibly an ITN-worthy development, but this is well outside my field of expertise, so will leave this for those better qualified than I am to decide. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The action is from the House of Representatives, not the Senate. The article gives no indication of what real impact this will have. It will be important to get impartial reports on this. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, this was only a vote to sue. Obama has yet to actually be sued. Also, this will have no impact whatsoever because even if the suit goes forward, he will already be out of office by the time anything comes to fruition. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Which probably will lead to the lawsuit being dropped. as I agree with what the American president said on this. That it was just people wanting to get attention. Like the whole filibuster temporary boom that did nothing. NathanWubs (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Cites

Many of the cites on this page link to commercial websites or propaganda news sites. Preferably on wikipedia, .edu or .org would be better.