Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 7

Social policy and marijuana
The social policy section could use a link to Barack Obama social policy. Also, some of the marijuana policy backtrack could be mentioned as in this edit. Thanks. 97.106.63.26 (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done:. I added a link to Barack Obama social policy, but I don't think the other info needs to be repeated here as well. It seems more like a criticism of the policy not being followed through than a backtrack anyway . I think the article is long enough that that section should just provide an overview of the social policy and the main article can provide the details. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I might agree except the other lines in this section do a better job following through on the policies. In the case of marijuana legalization, this presidency has been quite noteworthy in its failure, even according to normally-favorable sources.  This section is very misleading as it stands.  If you're looking for brevity, that's understandable, but I wouldn't think being outright misleading would be a goal.  97.106.63.26 (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

a better name for the transparency section
the section is about the lack of transparency, i suggest we rename, see Manual of Style. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The pledge was twice broken during Obama's first month
 * more aggressive than the Bush and other previous administrations in their response to whistleblowing
 * Politifact gives President Obama a "Promise Broken" rating on this issue
 * No. It is still about transparency, and that is the most neutral title for the section. Your comment is pure trolling, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources about Obama admin in relation to press
WhisperToMe (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Goodale, James C. "Only Nixon Harmed a Free Press More." The New York Times. May 21, 2013.
 * Younge, Gary. "Is Obama worse than Bush? That's beside the point." The Guardian. Friday 21 June 2013.
 * Redden, Molly. "Is the 'Chilling Effect' Real? National-security reporters on the impact of federal scrutiny." The New Republic. May 15, 2013.
 * The first two are editorials so not directly usable, though they may point to things that are. The third isn't very comprehensive, it's about one specific thing, the chilling effect on press coverage that occurs when the government launches investigations to find the source of leaks. And it mentions several anecdotes rather than summarizing the subject. The best would be to find a long article done that talks about the broader issue as an analysis, or a compendium. The larger issue is the administration's approach to dealing with transparency, leaks, and covert information. How it relates to the press specifically is a part of that. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the analysis. It's good even to bring up things not directly usable as they, as you said, can point to things that are. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Roberts, Dan. "US diplomats cry foul as Obama donors take over top embassy jobs." The Guardian/ July 10, 2013.
 * Taylor, Marisa and Jonathan S. Landay. "Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S." McClatchy. Thursday June 20, 2013. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden NSA
Edward Snowden leaked details of top-secret American and British government mass surveillance programs to the press. Sources: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57591281/obama-concerned-edward-snowden-could-leak-more/ http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/27/196202553/obama-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-has-more-documents http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/edward-snowden-nsa-leak-george-w-bush-comments-93604.html http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/edward-snowden-steps-secret-us-russia-spy-scuffle/story?id=19495341 http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19156698-hagel-calls-on-russia-to-return-edward-snowden-to-answer-for-serious-security-breach?lite http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23084166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbazorkzog (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Krugman editorial and Greenwald response on Obama administration scandals
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Krugman, Paul. "Whitewater Down." (Opinion) The New York Times. June 28, 2013.
 * Greenwald, Glenn. "James Clapper, EU play-acting, and political priorities." The Guardian. Wednesday 3 July 2013. "Defending the Obama administration, Paul Krugman pronounced that "the NSA stuff is a policy dispute, not the kind of scandal the right wing wants." Really? In what conceivable sense is this not a serious scandal?[...]"

First African American president makes no sense
He's *half* African American. That's like me saying that a glass is full or empty when it's only 50% full. It is neither full nor empty. Obama is either white AND black, or neither. A more correct statement would be that he's the first president with a parent of African descent.MisterZed (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ, and well as the talk page of the Barack Obama and and its archived discussions on this subject.--JayJasper (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we distinguish African/American from African-American? Hcobb (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what "African/American" refers to. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A lot of people seem to have trouble understanding what "African-American" refers to. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no definition. In this case most seem to accept 1/2 African-American as being African-American and that sounds like as good of a standard as any. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Did anybody repeal the One-drop rule? But can Mr. Obama really lay claim to the heritage of Africans in America the way Mrs. Obama can? Hcobb (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That sort of tangential meandering is about as pointless as discussing Who is a Jew? on someone else's article talk page, though. We're not here to debate or distill historically contentious conversations on racial and/or ethnic identity, we're here to write articles based on what reliable sources say about a subject.  Regarding this particular subject, not only do the preponderance of sources use the African-dash-American descriptor, but the subject self-identifies this way as well.  That is a one-two punch that the pro-biracial crowd simply is not going to overcome, which is why this is a perennially-denied request. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Do those thinking that there is some sort of "pure" African-American race understand the history of black slave ownership, where white plantation owners took their pleasures with the female slaves, whose children were then obviously brought up by the black families? Many modern, self identified African-Americans would have some European ancestry. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Drone wars and Prism surveillance missing
There is nothing in this article about America's waging drone wars in the Middle East and Africa and nothing about the PRISM mass surveillence program. Can it be added or not? I believe this is the top current discussions about Obama's presidency at least at the moment. Nyttkonto (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck getting the drone war mentioned. Obama's supporters are really adverse to mentioning that policy on wiki.
 * Yep, and if you keep up that line of posting, we'll track you down and debate the issue in your lounge room. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that these are huge issues worth inclusion. In both cases I think that they were continuations of previous practices (neither was initiated by him), and coverage should acknowledge that, but continuation is also a decision. North8000 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Re 'huge issues worth inclusion'. Yes they are. Remember truth is not a criteria for inclusion. Worse, Wikipedia isn't really always on top of WP significant events. It takes a core of non POV dedicated editors per article to make a great balanced article. Equally again a small group can keep a article like this safe and bland. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin
It has been suggested on Talk:Barack Obama that Obama speaking publicly about this event should be stated on this article. For reasons unexplained, Obama feels great affinity with Martin, stating that if he had a son, he would look like Martin, and that 35 years ago, he would have been Martin. The President has said nothing about the vast majority of the thousands of people who are shot dead in the U.S. every year, so it is notable that he spoke directly to the media on a few occasions about Martin and the connection he feels to the case and to Martin personally, despite having never heard of him before his death and having very little in common with him. 94.197.30.250 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Illogic much lately? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your response makes no sense. I think that Obama's public statements on the Zimmerman-Martin case should be mentioned in this article - do you agree or disagree? 94.197.250.144 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's way too early for that. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from an historical perspective, otherwise they smell of recentism. We need to see where this thing develops, what kind of coverage it gets, whether or not the Martin killing is taken up by the DoJ and what happens as a result. Then we will be in a better position to put something in this article about the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. All Obama Wikipedia articles should end coverage as of January 20, 2013. After he leaves office. His second term could be covered. No joke. Listen to Scjessey or reject his proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.179 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Within a few weeks we'll likely know if Obama's personal identification with Martin and statements about race, the federal inquiry about possible civil rights violations, and involvement in efforts to diminish stand-your-ground laws, is a major event in the Presidency. My hunch is that it is. I was just objecting to the silly jabs about Obama not having heard of him before the event. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

White House visitor logs
I just added the following to the article's section on White house visitor logs:

In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings “reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ ‘battalions’ of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.”

QbR54190dfcv (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an inaccurate summary of what the source says. The article doesn't say that those meetings were held "in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors". It's original research to say that. Try again. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's Grundle2600. Tarc (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Why have all the additions from the past three months been reverted?
The edit history shows that everything that has been added to this article in the last three months has been reverted. Why is this? 71.182.236.185 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

On edit: That thing about coffee directly below was not part of my comment, and I don't know why it's there. 71.182.236.185 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It can be fixed by adding a to the appropriate section. As for the reverts, it is because a banned editor has been obsessed with this article for 4+ years now. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If a banned editor has been erasing content, then that content should be added back to the article. 71.182.236.185 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The banned editor has bee trying to add content deemed unsuitable by others. Tarc (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014
"Once again, after attacking Obama relentlessly,"

(Found in the 2014 Midterm Election section)

This is not maintaining the neutral position Wikipedia is known for.

Should probably be removed or at the least replaced with something more neutral.

68.67.243.116 (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the statement is factual, not biased in any way, and tells exactly what happened & reflects the consensus of RS. The complaint did not specify where the problem lies. the statement = Attacking Obama relentlessly, emphasizing the stalled economy, and fueled by the anger of the Tea Party Movement, Republicans scored a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections, winning control of the House and gaining seats in the Senate-...Once again, after attacking Obama relentlessly, Republicans won control of the Senate and gained more seats in the House, achieving their largest majority since World War II.  Perhaps this is the problem?: it is the largest House majority since 1929.  Rjensen (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was never any consensus to add that statement in to begin with. I've reverted to the previous stable version. Now let's address the sentence in the 2010 elections section. "Attacking relentlessly" is a deliberately judgmental turn of phrase. That kind of POV statement doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. We can find a better, more neutral, well-sourced way to describe why the Republicans won the 2010 and 2014 elections so overwhelmingly. I will follow-up soon with some ideas, and some sources. TBSchemer (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several useful sources used to explain the Republican victory over at the United States elections, 2010 article. One significant difference between 2008 and 2010 is in how women and independents voted. Another significant factor is that in 2010, Americans trusted Republicans more than the Democrats on most issues. One factor that helps explain the shift in the votes of independents is that the Republicans used the Tea Party movement to appeal to libertarians, broadening their constituency. So here's a rewrite proposal:
 * By using the Tea Party movement to contrast their economic policies with President Obama's, Republicans broadened their appeal among libertarians, independents, and women, resulting in a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections that gave them control of the House and several seats in the Senate.[citations]
 * How does that sound? TBSchemer (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds terrible--like a GOP press release--it says GOP used/controlled tea party rather than vice versa!. All the RS report relentless GOP attacks on Obama and the Obamacare program. "relentless" is not POV -- it means  sustained steady heavy attacks. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying about the Republican/Tea Party directionality. Does this address your concerns? With politicians sympathetic to the Tea Party movement emphasizing a contrast between their economic policies and President Obama's, Republicans broadened their appeal among libertarians, women, and independent voters.[citations] This strategy resulted in a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections that gave Republicans control of the House and several seats in the Senate.[citations] TBSchemer (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. You think there are [citations] for that? Dave Dial (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually already provided the citations above. TBSchemer (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahhh yes, Dick Morris, sprinkled with some Fox News and some synthesis. Let me guess, you held onto the Dean Chambers/Skewed polls mantra in 2012. Right? Dave Dial (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave Dial, please respect WP: Civility by not making insinuations about other editors or engaging in political sniping. Keep your comments constructive. Source 1 specifically states that (and provides supporting evidence for the fact that) the GOP broadened their appeal among women and independents. Source 3 specifically states that the GOP broadened their appeal among voters by appealing to libertarian economic principles. Source 2 specifically states that "the Economy matters most" to voters, and voters in 2010 gave the GOP an edge on this issue and several others. We don't need to synthesize anything. All three of these sources agree that the GOP won the election by broadening their appeal among voters. Two of these sources specifically mention a total of three voter groups who were a part of that broadened appeal (women, independents, and libertarians). Two of these sources specifically mention that the Republicans focused heavily on the economy, and the economy mattered most to voters. They are all in agreement about the factors that gave the election results. TBSchemer (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Anupmehra - Let's talk!  14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * when GOP campaigns are vehemently bashing Obama as the main attack point (in 2010 and 2014) that is the main story that has to be mentioned. Rjensen (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure from a Republican POV, Obama was "vehemently bashing" the GOP. But we can be more neutral and encyclopedic than that, and we should. Rather than resorting to broad-brush characterizations, let's stick to measurable quantities and specific, recorded actions. TBSchemer (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015
Also, Shamai Leibowitz, a contract linguist for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was convicted of leaking information from embassy wiretaps, John Kiriakou, a former CIA analyst pleaded guilty to passing classified information, Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst for the US Army pleaded guilty to passing classified information to the Wikileaks organization, and James Hitselberger, a former contract linguist for the US Navy in Bahrain is charged with possessing classified documents. Most notably, Edward Snowden, a technical contractor for the NSA and former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is currently at large and has been charged with theft and the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to columnist Glenn Greenwald.

edit Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning please!

90.209.152.70 (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅, per above. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015
The article refers to 'Bradley Manning' in at least one section on policy and whistleblowers. The correct name is Chelsea Manning - please correct this error!

90.209.152.70 (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅: . G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD "D" phase discussion. I have reverted this WP:BOLD change. I note that WP:Transgender redirects to WP:WikiProject LGBT studies. This needs discussion, I think. In my opinion, such a change should not be made without clear consensus or clear policy support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here, User:Loonymonkey unreverted my change to link Manning's given name as Chelsea instead of as Bradley, saying 'This is cross-Wiki consensus (and anyway "Bradley" redirects to "chelsea" so avoid redirects)'.


 * Whether this article says Chelsea or Bradley during the discussion, I think that there ought to be a discussion here. IMO, whether it says Chelsea or Bradley, the article should provide a clarifying footnote summarizing the transgender situation and the name change which took place in April 2014, explaining that at the time of the 28 February 2013 guilty plea mentioned in the article Manning was putatively male and was using the name Bradley, and providing a wikilink to Chelsea Manning for further information. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This subject has been discussed to death across the entire project, not just here. Consensus on wikipedia (and in most journalistic sources) is to use the feminine pronoun and the name "Chelsea" even when discussing events prior to 2014.  This doesn't need to be argued on an article-by-article basis.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I edit a lot of articles, but I've never encountered either this situation or one of those discussions. However there are more articles I don't edit than those I do, and a lot of discussions take place without me seeing them. I've now looked at WP:Gender identity, and I read that as supporting you on this. I'm not comfortable that this article as currently written provides the "clear drafting (as suggested by MOS:IDENTITY" suggested there. However, I read the guidance at MOS:IDENTITY as favoring use of the self-designation over avoidance of confusion. I'll defer to you on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way as you do about this. I'm an ally of the transgender community, but I don't like this retroactive naming approach. I think Wikipedia has chosen a path of sensitivity, rather than accuracy, in this respect. Other articles where there are name changes (Cassius Clay to Mohammed Ali, for example) use the name that corresponds chronologically, but for some reason Wikipedia does not do so for trans people and the inconsistency troubles me. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Presidency of Barack Obama
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Presidency of Barack Obama's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "news.yahoo.com": From Hamid Karzai: Associated Press, Karzai says U.S. 'attacking' him over election From Max Baucus:  From Deepwater Horizon oil spill: [http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/oil-eating-microbes-may-not-cracked.html Oil-eating microbes may not be all they're cracked up to be | The Upshot Yahoo! News]. Yahoo!!! News. Retrieved 7 April 2011. From Timeline of events related to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Marwan Ibrahim, "Iraq retakes strategic oil town of Baiji from jihadists," Yahoo! News, 14 November 2014 From Fox News Channel: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091119/ts_ynews/ynews_ts988 Fox News again accused of airing misleading video – Yahoo! News] From Fox News Channel controversies:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox in this article is really unnecessary, as it is a duplicate of the infobox in Obama's article and is a biographical infobox. This article is not a biography of Obama, so the infobox is misplaced. I think just an image of him should be left or only the sidebar. Any thoughts? K atástas i (κατάσταση) 16:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the stuff in the infobox seems unnecessary, but much of it should remain. I would probably lose the kids, the alma mater and profession stuff and the religion, since these aren't relevant to the presidency. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd remove the box overall because all the information that is relevant to the presidency can be easily found in the lead. Biographical information is useless. In the case of leaving the infobox, I'd leave only presidential term information (assumed, vice, predeced by) and political party. That's really the only necessary information. K atástas i (κατάσταση) 18:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much how it should be, IMO. K atástas i (κατάσταση) 18:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also have the spouse (because the First Lady is part of the presidency) and the signature, but leave out birthdate and birthplace. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Although Obama vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline segment, he approved construction of pipeline sections that amounted to the same ends anyway?
Tried to ask about this on the Obama biography article with no response but it seems like it's more suited here than there at least.

Is OpEdNews a reliable source? This seems like it belongs in here somewhere. I'm having a bit of difficulty comprehending all this without a nice diagram, but apparently some sort of Canada-to-Gulf-coast pipeline already got completed anyway through Enbridge-owned segments constructed thanks to an Executive Order and the segments of which managed to sidestep the NEPA review process entirely? Having a look at Enbridge's own pipeline maps, it appears they have a pipeline running from the Alberta tar sands all the way to Chicago, Illinois and then back to Cushing, Oklahoma to connect with the rest of the Keystone pipeline segments, effectively completing the ability to transport oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Perhaps a single sentence about this belongs in the Environmental Policy section?174.45.178.216 (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Attacks from candidates
I've (several times) had to remove inappropriate content because of undue weight. This article is about the presidency of Barack Obama, and partisan attacks from political opponents running to succeed Obama aren't relevant or significant to the presidency. They are more appropriate for campaign articles of the candidates in question. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The political dimension of the Presidency of Barack Obama includes not just internal Democratic politics, but national presidential election of 2016. How the Republicans have made it a major issue, and the topics in which it emphasizes, define the issue andf belong here. Scjessey has shown he is not a neutral editor by denouncing the Republican position as "non-neutral garbage." (in his edit summary  19:47, 7 February 2016‎)  No one expects the Republicans or the Democrats to be neutral – but we do expect our Wikipedia editors to be neutral, and tell readers what the Obama opponents have done to make his Administration a central topic of national politics in 2016. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, as you can see from my comment above, there was no "failure to use talk page" at all. That was you. Second, we are currently in the election that will decide who succeeds Barack Obama, which means many candidates on the Republican side will be attacking Obama's presidency. The political back-and-forth of election season has no bearing whatsoever on Obama's presidency. If we devote a single phrase of this electioneering crap to this article, it will be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. The only reason you could possibly think otherwise (and your label for me as "not a neutral editor" bears this out) is if you are trying to use Wikipedia to further your own political agenda. You are almost as experienced a Wikipedia editor as I am, so you should no better than to engage in this kind of crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense-- presidencies are highly political and shape both parties-- FDR is a famous example. The way the main opposition handled the presidency is a major issue that all the news media are currently covering.   the "garbage" comment shows a deep partisanship that is incompatible with the duty of the editors. The deleted material was based on a major neutral news source ("POLITICO") and he used the short quote from Rubio.  Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The term, Armenian Genocide and the presidency
Are there any references of scholarly- or other notable opinions as to why Obama has not yet in his presidency used the term Armenian Genocide? The answer might affect the article about the presidency and/or an article I am working on, where one editor is trying to pin a donkey tail on the US ambassador to the UN, regarding this matter. Another question I have asked in the other discussion is, more or less: The tenure of the US ambassador to the UN, is part of the Barack Obama administration; about how many events in the tenure of this ambassador, are more important (for an encyclopedia) than that the ambassador has not yet discussed the Armenian Genocide? 46.212.18.160 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * the complaint reeks of pro-Armenian POV. Editors are not allowed to introduce polemics from partisans of 1915 episodes imposed on 2016 diplomatic issues. The article must be neutral between Turkey and Armenia on the 2016 issues of rhetoric/ apologies/ guilt. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why a debate about the Samantha Power article has been brought up here, but since it has: it's not just any ambassador, it's Samantha Power, whose entire claim to fame before her appointment--and the reason she was appointed as an ambassador in the first place--was her standing as the nation's most outspoken scholar of genocide. Her book specifically criticized the US for not condemning the Armenian genocide. She campaigned for Obama within the Armenian-American community specifically saying that Obama would recognize the genocide. She's been criticized, in print, more than once, for her silence on the issue since her appointment. Our anon friend is being disingenuous by pretending this is just some hobbyhorse issue being attached to some random diplomat for no apparent reason.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  06:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Dead wikisource link concerning
In section 5.3.5 (Killing of Osama bin Laden) there is a wikisource link box, whose link is dead. One with rights should update the "Bin" to lowercase "bin", where the correct source resides (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Remarks_by_the_President_on_Osama_bin_Laden) Simnik(NSK) (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks Orser67 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of infobox
There's been some debate about including the infobox on the main page. I think it's useful in that it summarizes key facts about Obama's presidency at a glance. User:Neve-selbert has argued that the infobox is unnecessary since the information is already included in the lede section. What do other people think? Orser67 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would note that it was originally 's idea to exclude the infobox from these "Presidency of" articles.--Neve–selbert 18:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, . The Manual of Style is clear about the purpose of infoboxes: they are "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". As I indicated in my edit summary, "the infobox is not summarizing the article (most of its information isn't in the article at all)". And that is no surprise as the intended use of Infobox officeholder is in the name – it's for articles about officeholders, not for articles about an officeholder's tenure in office. While its biographical data is useful to help summarize a biography, it certainly does not summarize a presidency (the presidency being the subject of this article, not the president). Graham (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What you say is a good reason to remove some of the info that had been in the infobox when you had originally deleted it. But I don't see it as supporting the deletion of the entire infobox and relevant information such as the dates of the presidency, the vp, president's party, etc. Orser67 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The little remaining information would not be a summary of the article. Graham (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the infobox is not useful here. Articles such as this are supplemental to the main article, Barack Obama, where term, vice president, party, etc. are already located in that article's infobox. clpo13(talk) 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Raggz's edits
User:Raggz, I can't say that I find most or perhaps any of your edits constructive. For instance, creating a section entitled "poverty" only to write a single sentence about how poverty increased under Obama smacks of bias to me. Similarly, creating a section on the economic impact of Obamacare while citing only Donald Trump's campaign website also smacks of bias. Also, I haven't looked at all of your edits, but in one edit you alleged that you were deleting original research in deleting the second half of this sentence: "The Bush administration established the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to hold alleged terrorists in a manner that did not treat them as conventional prisoners of war." However, the source clearly states "Guantanamo was established under President George W. Bush as a place to hold alleged terrorists, or enemy combatants, rather than treating them as conventional prisoners of war." Does anyone else have thoughts on Raggz's recent edits? Orser67 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Tenses
I created a version of the article in the past tense in my sandbox, I plan on updating the article after Trump is inaugurated and I will try to incorporate any changes made to the article between now and then. Orser67 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Approval ratings and "other opinions"
Just as a heads up, I see some changes that need to be made with this paragraph. Please feel free to add your input here.
 * "Obama's election also provoked a reaction to his race, birthplace, and religion. As president, Obama faced numerous taunts and racial innuendos, though most overt racist comments were limited to a small fringe.[453] Many Americans, including businessman and future president Donald Trump, theorized that Obama had been born in Kenya; an April 2011 CNN poll taken shortly before Obama released his long-form birth certificate found that 40% of Republicans believed that Obama had been born in Kenya.[442] Many of these "birthers" argued that because Obama was (allegedly) not a citizen, he was not eligible to serve as president under the natural-born-citizen requirements of the Constitution. Despite Obama's release of his long-form birth certificate, which affirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii, a 2015 CNN poll found that 20% of Americans believed that Obama was born outside of the country.[454] Many also claimed that Obama practiced Islam, and a 2015 CNN poll found that 29% of Americans and 43% of Republicans believed Obama to be a Muslim.[454] Even prior to his election as president, Obama had clarified that he was a long-time member of a church affiliated with the United Church of Christ, a mainline Protestant denomination." --DN (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Presidency of Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117020459/http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/11/16466104-us-troops-to-move-into-support-role-in-afghanistan-in-the-spring-obama-says?lite to http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/11/16466104-us-troops-to-move-into-support-role-in-afghanistan-in-the-spring-obama-says?lite
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110131124844/http://www.cspan.org/Events/President-Obamas-State-of-the-Union-Address/10737419121-6/ to http://cspan.org/Events/President-Obamas-State-of-the-Union-Address/10737419121-6/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018
Change: "January 20, 2009 – January 20, 1017" to "January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017" Slatergator02 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Jamietw (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Flint
A IG report about the EPA's response to the Flint crisis was removed under the rationale "Not about Obama". But it is about the presidency of Obama, namely the actions of the Obama adm's EPA. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Was Obama directly involved? Was it something based on policy he had implemented? Or was the problem simply some incompetence by some public servants? HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not Obama's personal article. It's about his administration, which includes the EPA. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, but we don't blame Obama for clerical errors by public servants who may have been in their jobs for decades. My questions above were serious ones. I don't know the answers. I am open to being swayed by the facts on this matter. Do you have the answers to my questions? (Well sourced, of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether Obama micro-managed the EPA isn't relevant. Obama tapped the head of the EPA and his administration placed political appointees in the agency. The actions of the EPA during his presidency fall under the presidency of Barack Obama. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure many other mistakes were made by public servants during his Presidency, mistakes which we don't write about in the article. You haven't really made any case for including it other than "It happened while he was President so it's his fault". A better case is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * --it was front page news for months --Obama knew about Flint and knew his administration was indeed involved. Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the same as saying it was Obama's fault. Did any of that "front page news" say it was? HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Who else takes the blame for any failures of the Obama administration? --some minor official thaqt no one supervised? Rjensen (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds just like WP:SYNTHESIS. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Separate Obama Administration Article?
Shouldn't this article have a separate article spun off (and a bit shorter) on the Obama Administration? That is how it was organized in earlier physical encyclopaedias, where they highlighted the various departments in each subsequent administration, and it would allow some reduction in the length of this article. Are other presidential articles normally this long? Peace. Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Website
This may have been asked before, but there is a government website dedicated to Obama's presidency (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/). It makes sense for this website to be in the infobox, as it is completely about the presidency of Barack Obama, which is what the article is about. Currently, the website in the infobox is the website for Barack Obama himself. Thoughts? Melofors (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a procedural change, to have it added to the Infobox and I am not sure where you might start looking to initiate that from. You may want to start with the Helpdesk and see if they could put you in touch with one of the standardization groups that control that process. Your suggestion sounded like an appropriate addition. Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't there mention of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes?
I am curious as to why Ben Rhodes isn't mentioned on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuppiesPlayingChess (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021
There is a section titled "Cultural influence". Whilst this subject is certainly interesting, and merits being featured on the wikipedia page for Barack Obama's Presidency, I believe that the subsequent text describing Barack Obama's "cultural influence" as President is irrelevant to the content of the rest of the article. Sweetchildofmine500 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Yeah, I agree. Maybe if there was something a bit more interesting in there I'd be more sympathetic, but it was mostly just talking about Parks and Recreation, which, I mean... just why? Volteer1 (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A section on his influence on cultural norms could be noteworthy, but there's nothing of value in that section at present. It just lists some TV shows that "defined the era", the only thing even tangentially related to Obama is the statement "the series was also laced with the progressiveness that would cause many to turn against Obama", which is not really enlightening enough to save a whole section on television shows. Volteer1 (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's how cultural history works--it's not just novels but also television that defines American culture. The editor who wrote the section (not me) provided two reliable sources that support the argument. That makes it appropriate material, by Wikipedia guidelines. Note that (from our article on the show) "Throughout its run, Parks and Recreation received several awards and nominations, including 14 Primetime Emmy Award nominations (two for Outstanding Comedy Series), a Golden Globe Award win for Poehler's performance, and a nomination for the Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy. In Time's 2012 year-end lists issue, Parks and Recreation was named the number one television series of that year. In 2013, after receiving four consecutive nominations in the category, Parks and Recreation won the Television Critics Association Award for Outstanding Achievement in Comedy. That's pretty impressive for popular culture dealing with politics. Alan Sepinwall wrote in Rolling Stone:
 * Few series in recent memory have been as clearly tied to a moment — and, specifically, a presidential administration — as Parks and Rec. The show’s belief in the power of government to make people’s lives better — and, more broadly, in the obligation members of a community (be they friends, family, or, as Ron Swanson once put it, “workplace proximity associates”) have to help one another in times of need — made it the standard-bearer for the hopefulness of the Obama era. Rjensen (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021
The relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu (who held office for all but two months of Obama's presidency) was notably icy, with many commenting on their mutual distaste for each other.

Typo: Change "Netenyahu" to "Netanyahu". LoekVV (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done, good catch. Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 13:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Obama-backed coup of Elected Honduran President
Why is there no mention of the Obama-administration-backed overthrow of the Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya, in June 2009, in this article? Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , do you have any sources? I see this one, where Obama called the coup illegal and said it would set a "terrible precedent". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever my original sources said - which were from Wikipedia - don't appear to pan out. I think I am wrong about Obama backing the coup. In fact, he seems to have supported Zelaya. The Organization of American States was unified in their opposition to the coup, as was the U.S., which should probably be included as an important indication of Obama's earlier foreign policy, that seems to have shifted over the course of his presidency, and with different Secretaries of State. Muboshgu Thanks for double-checking me. Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)