Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Islamic terrorism[edit]

It should be included in this article that Obama refuses to recognize that Islamic terrorism exists.[1] --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll pass on the hand-wringing dramatics from the tabloid rags, thanks. Not being in lockstep the fringe POV of "the Ft. Hood shooter has a Muslim name so therefore it must be a terrorist act" is not the equivalent of " refuses to recognize that Islamic terrorism exists". Tarc (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is there not a section about terrorism on this page? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably because it is a given that the position of the President of the United States is "against" ? Tarc (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you seriously feel the issue is that simple? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is incomplete in many ways. My guess is that there are so many other articles about Obama, and now that he's president his "political positions" are not as important as actions. Most of the sources, the American military and law enforcement in particular, are not treating the shooting as a terrorist incident but rather a mentally troubled person who snapped. If it were sourceable, and met other inclusion criteria, we could include a statement that Obama disfavored labelling mass murders by lone extremists as domestic terrorism, but instead treated them as criminal matters -- or that he was reluctant to label bad acts committed by Muslims as "Islamic" acts, if that is indeed the case. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, if the shooter had been one of the many Christians that go on shooting sprees every year, would you have declared that we should write a section on how "Obama refuses to recognize Christian terrorism?" --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It's beside the point, but no. He does recognize Christian terrorism, this is evident by the memo from the Homeland Security Department that right-wing Americans are terrorists. This should also be included in the section. For the most part it should be about his views on terrorism and his strategies for dealing with it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Engaging in exaggeration and hyperbole doesn't really bolster your case. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That article says that Obama hasn't (yet) called the Fort Hood shooting an Islamic terrorist attack, that he is urging that people not rush to judgement, etc., which is not the same thing as denying that Islamic terrorism exists. At any rate, a single opinion piece isn't enough to make an addition to this article without violating WP:UNDUE. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking exclusively about the terrorist attack at Ft. Hood. Read my post above, "For the most part [a section on Terrorism] should be [included to show] his views on terrorism and his strategies for dealing with it." --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
But that's my point - the opinion piece you cite is specifically about Obama's reaction to Fort Hood, which he has not (yet) called "Islamic terrorism." That's not the same thing as saying that he doesn't believe that Islamic terrorism exists. Using that opinion piece to source Obama's opinion of Islamic terrorism in general is likely inaccrate, and at any rate violates WP:UNDUE. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Other sources can be found. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Other sources for your opinion? Of course they can be found. There are thousands of partisan blogs out there that you'll probably agree with, take your pick. But don't think they have anything to do with this article (or often, reality, for that matter) --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this page is contentions, but why not have a section on obama's stance on terrorism (why specifically islamic?), reflecting his voting history as a senator, requests for legislation as president, and actual orders made by the president. this should be the case for a multitude of other categories. I'm amazed that this article is slim in comparison to the page for romney's political stance, and minescule in comparison ron paul's. we don't have to omit nearly ALL information in order to remain partisian, we just need to stick to things he has SPECIFICALLY done/said/voted, and within the actual context it came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This article about Barack Obama is a stub. It lacks essential information not only about Islamic terrorism, but also about other important issues: deficit, immigration, medical insurance, islamization of USA, Israel, Iran, etc. Wikipedia article about Mitt Romney ( ) is about 10 times longer and much more detailed. Even Wikipedia articles about fringe candidates (Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode) are longer than this article about Obama. The Obama's website ( ) is just as terse about his political positions, but Romney's website ( ) has lots of information. I am a moderate left-winger, but I am not going to vote for Obama until I find more info about his record and positions. Quinacrine (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Outdated Information?[edit]

I believe some of this information is somewhat outdated, particularly any positions Obama held before his presidential bid. For example, the rating from the Almanac of American Politics rates Obama at 77 percent more liberal than the rest of the Senate, but his policies have expectedly become less liberal now that he has become President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoneymiff (talkcontribs) 21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention there is very little info, as opposed to Political positions of Mitt Romney where there's too much and I've been doing some cutting. We should try to make wikipedia look good by having more balanced info on both articles. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 23:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Two years later, still out of date[edit]

I see this article was tagged as out-of-date back in 2010, and from what I can see, it isn't in any better condition now. With the election just a little more than 3 months off, that's unfortunate. I think we can do better. I'm going to do what I can as time allows, but I hope I can get some help.

I haven't checked yet, but I'll bet many (or most... or all) of the sub-articles are in the same condition.

If somebody sees this and realizes there has been a fork and this article was abandoned, please give me a yell and let me know that. Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 06:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There's probably more action at the biography and main campaign 2012 page and posting a note there re: relevant pages might help. CarolMooreDC 20:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Carol, that's a good idea. You know, there are so many sub-articles forked off of every. single. section. of. every. single. article. related to Barack Obama, that I'm seriously reconsidering my statement of concern. It's a gargantuan task, and I'm a little shocked that more Wikipedians don't see the condition of the articles and think the situation is worth their time and attention. (Makes me feel all lonely and stuff.) Belchfire-TALK

how did you get this?[edit]

"Ending the war in Iraq responsibly." How exactly did you get this? The surrender in Iraq is widely accepted as not a "responsible" end, so how did this line get in there? is it from his "official" position statement or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is mentioned twice in the article. It comes from the supporting sources cited, Agenda | The Obama-Biden Transition Team and "Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs" April 23, 2007. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


Why is there nothing on Obama's defence or foreign policies? A brief reference to surveillance is not sufficient.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

There's actually so much information, it was split out into its own article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)