Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

FYI

One of our favorite ex-editors is stirring up the "article isn't NPOV!" pot over at the Free Republic, so keep an eye out for vandalism today. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hahahaha! - "person who lives in my apartment building" is Grundle's sockpuppet defense, is it? That's too funny. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

He does say "a crazy person who lives in my apartment building added the following reliably sourced content to that section on April 2, 2015". I suspect that is literally true. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Heh. I miss Grundle sometimes. Not enough to let him edit this article, but still. Jonathunder (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

U.S. drone strike

My suggestion for the main article: "As president and as Commander-in-chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations including the one that inadvertently took the lives of Warren and Giovanni," Obama said Thursday morning in the White House briefing room, where he apologized on behalf of the U.S. government. ref. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/23/politics/white-house-hostages-killed/index.html Probably place this to the Foreign policy section. 91.83.252.211 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

While tragic, this is not biographically significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't agree. Quite significant as he says he is responsible for the 2 people's death. 91.83.252.211 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration would be suitable. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's sad, but this president, like many of those before him, is responsible for the deaths of many. I agree with Tarc. Jonathunder (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Is   needed?

This edit added   to various parts of the article. How does that improve the article? Should it be removed from the article? SMP0328. (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The   is a non-breaking space which means that when a line wraps, it will not break between the number and the following word. The usages are debatable as there is a school of thought that a whole word like "million" should be allowed to wrap to the next line, and there's not much likelihood of someone thinking a value is only $10 by missing the "million" on the next line. On the other hand, perhaps the values are best if "million" is kept with the number. I think it's ok. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In this case, most of the article already used  , e.g.: $11.5 trillion, $3 trillion, and $1.5 trillion. For consistency I just added   where it was "missing". --Oldnewnew (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the use of   being consistent, but I lean toward removing it throughout the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

But then it should be removed from percent also, e.g. 70 percent. Would that be a good idea? --Oldnewnew (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could a put a hyphen in place of each  . SMP0328. (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would we want to replace a space with a hyphen in places where a hyphen is not normally called for? And if we did, would we use normal (breaking) hyphens, or the even more difficult to code non-breaking hyphens? 2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with removing the non-breaking spaces. Line breaks in situations such as these are undesirable. As for replacing them with hyphens, I am not sure that is appropriate. Non-breaking spaces are permitted per MOS:NBSP. Dustin (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing consistency – Cite templates

Most of the article has cite templates. However, the Further reading section does not although the References section does. It looks like the cite templates are forgotten in the Further reading section. --Oldnewnew (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. I've added different cite templates in the section. However, there is a dead link. I'm not able to update it. Hope that someone can update it in the article:

Zutter, Hank De (December 8, 1995). "What Makes Obama Run?". Chicago Reader. Retrieved January 14, 2008.

--Oldnewnew (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The current link should be http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/what-makes-obama-run/Content?oid=889221 2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! I've updated with your link. --Oldnewnew (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User affiliated to Barack Obama

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.

---

You have twice added a bogus {{connected contributor}} to this talk page: diff + diff. That is something to do with a rather cheeky accusation on your talk about a claimed COI with regard to Steinway & Sons, aka WP:POINT. Please explain your connection with the subject of this article or revert your edit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Answer to User:Johnuniq: Yes, I added the {{connected contributor}}. I saw that you removed the template and wrote "please don't muck around when frustrated by idiocy on your talk" in the summary field.[4] Then I added the {{connected contributor}} once again.

I have edited the Steinway & Sons article. Most of the edits I've made in the Steinway & Sons article have been adding cite templates and restoring dead links through the entire article. These technical adjustments count for hundreds of my edits in the Steinway & Sons article. The adjustments was actually requested by User:Pyrotec on Talk:Steinway & Sons/GA1. I have made many similar, technical edits in the Barack Obama article and would like to continue to do so in the article. According to User:Theroadislong I'm affiliated to Steinway & Sons based on my many edits of the Steinway & Sons article.[5] I've made many similar edits in the Barack Obama article. If I'm affiliated to Steinway & Sons then I'm also affiliated to Barack Obama. Otherwise, User:Theroadislong's edits here and here don't make sense. By the way, I have edited other articles many times, e.g. Musical instrument, and would like to continue to do so in the Musical instrument article. Perhaps I'm also affiliated to musical instruments.

However, I'm glad to hear that you above call it "a rather cheeky accusation on your [my] talk" page and here call it an "idiocy on your [my] talk" page. Thanks for the support. --Oldnewnew (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems a definite case of WP:POINT. Oldnewnew, I don't know what the issue in the Steinway article is and I'm not going to look into it or get involved in it, but keep the issues and discussion over in that article. Do not spill it over into this one to make a point. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not making a point per WP:POINT. I just take the consequence of User:Theroadislong's edit here and here. As I know there should be consistency on Wikipedia. If I'm affiliated to Steinway & Sons but not to Barack Obama then the use of the {{connected contributor}} template is inconsistent and a mess. --Oldnewnew (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly the definition of making a point per WP:POINT. "...making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their 'point'." Oldnewnew, end this now. I see that you are also now making a large number of edits to George W. Bush, one can conjecture that you intend to do the same thing and post the same connected contributor template. Stop now. This is absolutely not the way to get this done. Your issues have absolutely nothing to do with this article or George W. Bush. It is entirely likely the use of that template against you was incorrect, possible a violation of WP:AGF, but you are destroying any possible good will and support by going at it this way in violation of WP:POINT. Continue this, and I will report you to an administrator myself. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2015 (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.

Dead links

There are some dead links in the article. One of the dead links has a {{Dead link|date=October 2014}} tag but there are more than just one link with a problem. See http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Barack_Obama. If someone would like to help finding the new URL for these websites or restore the dead and problematic links it would be great. --Oldnewnew (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone want to help me restoring the dead and problematic links in the article? I have added cite templates and restored dead links in the Steinway & Sons article. It took my hundreds of edits to do that myself! I'm not going to do the same again because the work was simply too much for just one person. --Oldnewnew (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Michelle Robinson?

I see that on this and other pages the spouse's surname is shown as their pre-marriage surname. I started discussion about this on Template_talk:Infobox_person#Spouse_parameter_and_surnames and on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Spouse_parameter_and_surnames but have received little response. I can find no reason for this apparent trend. Per suggestion at the discussion, I've edited this page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Drone strikes

It is totally inexcusable that there is no mention of drone strikes in Pakistan in this article's foreign policy section. All we require is a short paragraph about this extremely notable Obama administration foreign policy and the controversies relating to it. Otherwise this is article is not credible as supposedly impartial and comprehensive. JJARichardson (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration would be more suitable. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It seems preposterous for a foreign policy issue easily as significant as action in Libya and Iraq to not be included. Not even a sentence? JJARichardson (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind this article is Barack Obama's biography. Drone strikes against a specific country may be an important aspect of the foreign policy of the US government, but that does not mean they are specifically biographically significant to Barack Obama. Bear in mind Obama did not actually start drone strikes in foreign nations. That was going on a long time before he came to office. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

While he did not invent drone strikes, they have massively expanded in scope under Obama, and their use has not been limited to Pakistan. They've become a "go to" tool for this administration. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

True, but are they a significant detail in the broader life of Obama, as this summary style article hopes to encapsulate? Of course not. As Tarc said, they are significant in the context of foreign policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The drone strikes have been significantly expanded under Obama, and it's a point of contention among the left-wing that he has done so. Fundamental to Obama's foreign policy agenda has been a shift from conventional warfare to drones. Also bear in mind, as the article on the drone strikes states, that this has resulted in an increase in civilian deaths which the Pakistani prime minster has publicity opposed and which Amnesty International has spoken out against as potentially criminal. Conversely, the intervention in Libya resulted in sparing civilian deaths and had substantial levels of support internationally, including of course from the UN which is apparently perturbed by the drone strikes. JJARichardson (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the ins and outs of drone strikes, although the notion that drone strikes have caused an increase in civilian deaths compared to previous methods of warfare (carpet bombing, for instance) is ridiculous. This is a summary style article. It covers broad strokes. Specifics are for the "daughter articles" like Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This may be your opinion, but objectively the sources state a concern about drone strikes based upon the civilian deaths caused by them along with concerns about sovereignty being violated. With all due respect, I reiterate my point that were are doing our users a disservice by essentially covering up the reality of this prominent issue in the body of this article. By all means, the drones should be discussed as length in the foreign policy article. It should be a concise paragraph in this one. I don't understand how a subject addressed by national governments, the UN and organizations like Amnesty is trivial. And yes, this would be balanced by the POV that drones are a more respectable and responsible kind of warfare. JJARichardson (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You are obviously not personally keen on drone strikes (me neither!), but the fact remains the type of weapon used to conduct air strikes is not biographically significant. While there is plenty of coverage in the media about the rights and wrongs of drone strikes, there's little media coverage saying that drone strikes are an Obama problem. There are many things more biographically significant that are competing for attention in this article, which is why we use summary style. Any summary of foreign policy that talks about the specific weapons used to conduct said policy wouldn't be much of a summary, would it? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I love drone strikes; terrorists going *boom* into itty bitty pieces warms the cockles of my heart, but that's neither here nor there. But yes, the specifics of using drones in war is not suited to this biographical article. Tarc (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Even warmer if you'd live in the same apartment complex.--TMCk (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Noting the use of any specific war weapon isn't my agenda... it's the fact that the expanded use of drone warfare in countries like Pakistan by the Obama administration is an extremely contentious policy on an international scale, as multiple reputable sources state. I still think that it's totally warranted that we mention it in this article's foreign policy section, even if it is just a sentence or two. JJARichardson (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Business and Self Employment

Does this bit of trivia really merit its own section? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That section has been removed. SMP0328. (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, that does not merit its own section. It does not seem very notable. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015

I would like to change Obama's religion, he is cathlioc not christian. 162.104.7.236 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2015

I would like to change Obama's religion, he is cathlioc not christian. 162.104.7.236 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)