Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 80

This is an archive of past discussions about Barack Obama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

→

Benghazi paragraph

Burned itself out. Now just an insult magnet

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

I removed this paragraph about Benghazi! because it was written in a non-neutral way that obviously sought to negatively impact Hillary Clinton in an election. It was constructed around allegations, rather than facts, and referenced by a single Fox News source. I don't object to having the Benghazi attack in the article, but I most strenuously object to how this was put into the article. Going forward, I expect anyone seeking to include this material in the article to first propose a paragraph on this talk page and seek consensus for inclusion. A dim view will be taken to edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, you have said that "it was written in a non-neutral way that obviously sought to negatively impact Hillary Clinton in an election." That is a violation of WP:AGF and does not reflect my intent at all. I believe that everything I put in the paragraph was fact. It is fact that Islamic militants attacked the embassy and killed four Americans. It is also fact that Obama and Clinton have received criticism for having "allegedly," which is a word I used in the article, not having properly prepared. I may attempt to redo the paragraph and make it a bit more detailed, but there are clearly better options here than deleting the whole thing. Could you give me some sort of advice on what I could do to improve it? (Later: I also note that I somehow forgot to add "-were killed" after listing the names of the four casualties.) Display name 99 (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey Seems very neutral to me. NPOV does not mean that the article cannot include the negative as well as the positive regarding the subject. Also, you appear to indicate that you don't believe Fox News isn't a valid source. It comes up periodically, and it is a valid source. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, there's a factual error. Two Americans were killed when the militants attacked the embassy, not four. The other two Americans died in the attack on a CIA compound several hours later. Second, Hillary Clinton cannot be held accountable for the deaths at the CIA compound, since they were not under the auspices of the State Department. Stating otherwise would violate WP:BLP. Third, the paragraph wasn't written neutrally, since in addition to blaming Clinton for something that wasn't her responsibility, it also failed to mention that a Republican Congress refused to fund asked-for security upgrades at the embassy. Therefore, I have again removed the paragraph until these errors can be properly addressed. When SQL restored the paragraph, it ignored WP:BRD and failed to heed my warning about edit warring. Work out the text here first, then seek consensus for inclusion. Also remember Obama-related articles fall under discretionary sanctions. Finally, despite what that talk page link states, Fox News isn't generally considered reliable for anything whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, you should make the changes you have suggested and then restore the paragraph, rather than simply remove the paragraph and order an editor to make the changes you want. You say Fox News is an unreliable source, but how about MSNBC or CNN? All are news networks. You may not like Fox News, but that does not make it an unreliable source. SMP0328. (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the paragraph should be in the article at all. In addition to the issues I addressed above, I believe there are WP:WEIGHT concerns and I see little to no evidence that the Benghazi attack was a significant moment in the biography of Barack Obama. So no, I won't be restoring the paragraph. I would prefer to see it properly discussed here first, and then a consensus for inclusion sought. That has always been the way controversial things are handled on this article, and I see no reason for that to change now. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, the extent to which Clinton was at fault is still debated considerably. Therefore, I do not think that it is appropriate for you to make the comments that you did here by saying that the attacks were not her responsibility. That is your personal opinion on what is still a very controversial political topic. When we combine this with your previous statements in which you said that my motive for adding the information was to negatively impact Hillary Clinton, I believe that it is reasonable to state that you may want to look at your own political biases for a moment before continuing. (The same goes for your statement on Fox News.) In addition, I never stated that the attacks were Clinton's fault. All I did was say that she received criticism for them. I think we can all agree that this is true. Whether the criticism is justified or not is for the reader to decide. As for their relevance to the Obama article, they should certainly be discussed in Clinton's biography in greater detail, because they have impacted her more. However, the attacks were made into an issue in the 2012 election, and have since become a major political topic during Obama's second term, and have been used by Republicans in an attempt to discredit the entire administration. I think that all of this is worth a few sentences. I support the inclusion of the paragraph with some of the revisions that you suggested, including when you identified the lack of clarity regarding the 2 separate locations of the attacks. Display name 99 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The only actual argument I'm seeing here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I think we can have a civil conversation without making thinly veiled threats about edit warring. SQL ^{Query me!} 10:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: "I see little to no evidence that the Benghazi attack was a significant moment in the biography of Barack Obama." - I have to ask; did you perhaps want to re-consider that comment? A United States Ambassador was murdered during his presidency and there was widespread criticism of the government and it's failings leading up to that death. There was widespread media coverage regarding this incident (see: 2012 Benghazi attack) and I would argue that it was a very significant event of Obama's time at the Whitehouse. Furthermore, we don't sanitize articles for the sake of an election. We go by what the sources say, and if they level criticism at Clinton, then we include that. If you have an issue with Fox News, I suggest you take it to WP:RSN, but as of now, it is considered a reliable source. - ^theWOLFchild 12:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

None of you have addressed my primary concerns. The paragraph stated incorrect facts, which is obviously a complete no no. Not even the crappy source supported that error. Also, this article is about Barack Obama, so shoehorning in some Republican attacks on Hillary Clinton is inappropriate (and, in fact, a BLP violation). And like I said before, it left out the "inconvenient truth" the embassy wasn't properly secured because Republicans in Congress refused to approve the necessary funding. So let's dial down the rhetoric a bit, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Benghazi was a significant advent during Obama's term as president, therefore it is worth mentioning. Clinton was his Secretary of State, and widely associated with Benghazi. Not only is it not a "BLP vio" to mention her, it's both prudent and appropriate to do so. Just because the Hilary fans don't like it, does not give her a free pass here. If the sources support mention of the criticism she received, then there's no reason to not include it, despite how desperate you are to lay the blame solely at the feet of the Republican congress. That said, all this debate is becoming pointless. I suggest you write the passage the way you think it should be, with attached sources, and present it here for consensus, or move on. - ^theWOLFchild 13:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a gross mischaracterization of what I've been saying. And why should I be responsible for writing something I believe should not be in the article? Also, if you had an understanding of WP:BLP, you would see why it is wrong to allow misleading material to sit in the article. Right in the introduction, it says:

Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Now from where I'm sitting, it's unambiguously clear I did the right thing by removing this contentious material. It was wrong about who died where (it didn't even match the source), it made allegations about an individual who is not even the subject of this article, and it failed to neutrally show both sides of the criticism. The onus is on the editors who wish to include material to come up with an acceptable text. They can present that text here, and then everyone can weigh in on whether or not it is acceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The only thing "unambiguous" here is your disdain for Fox News and support of HRC. Perhaps you should read your own policy quote... the part about content being "unsourced or poorly sourced". The content you removed was properly sourced. If there were errors, then simply correct them, according to the source. But removing the content completely because "it's a election year" and you don't like Fox News is not acceptable. - ^theWOLFchild 15:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you not read anything I said above? The paragraph incorrectly stated 4 people died on the attack of the embassy, when it was in fact just 2 people. Even the source doesn't say that. By the way, you should go and actually look at the source and see how poor it is. It's a terrible article from almost 2 years ago, which obviously fails to cover key events since then that refute some of what was said. And this article is about Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton. Please try to collaborate on Wikipedia with a neutral point of view, and check your biases at the door please. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The edit that included that paragraph is absolutely unacceptable. For obvious reasons. The first being the text doesn't match the source, and doesn't include the fact that "GOP lawmakers... cut the administration's budget request for diplomatic security in 2012" and Ambassador Stevens rejected the offer by US military to bolster their security by adding members is the US army. Secondly, this is Obama's biography, this incident is a blip on the radar and there is not enough weight to include here. A small mention is included in his Presidency article. But I'm not even sure it should be there. Look at the many attacks the USA have had on their embassies, with almost none included in any of the people were presidents at the time. One example is the Beirut embassy bombing. Which was widely covered but rejected in the Ronald Reagan biography. Although the Beirut barracks bombing in which there were 307 casualties(241 American Military Servicemen) is briefly mentioned in Reagan's article. And lastly, the POV the edit had is unacceptable. So there you go, the editors that yearn for this to be in this article, satisfy these problems. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What ↑↑↑↑ said. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV: Someone Boldy added it, so I Reverted it and began a Discussion here. That's how WP:BRD is supposed to work. What you were doing was edit warring, which is what I warned about in my very first comment of the thread. On articles like this, under Arbcom probation, you must seek a consensus for inclusion of contentious material, not the other way around. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

MSGJ has quite rightly applied temporary page protection to guard the article from the edit warring I warned against at the beginning of this thread, but unfortunately that protection has been applied with the disputed material in situ. I will be requesting the removal of the disputed material, so it is important the discussion continues in a respectful manner. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

the disputed content

The paragraph read;

On September 12, 2012, Islamic militants attacked the United States Embassy in Benghazi. Four Americans-Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were killed. Obama and Secretary Clinton have both received substantial criticism for allegedly not having paid proper attention to security or headed warnings of danger.^[1]

References

^ Cass, Connie. A summary of various elements of the story of the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi, Libya Fox News. 12 May 2014. Web. Retrieved 13 February 2016.

It's actually not all that wrong. It could've specified that the ambassador and foreign service officer died at the diplomatic mission and the two CIA contractors died at the nearby CIA outpost. It's absolutely correct that both Obama and Clinton received criticism, though going into detail about who did or did not pay attention to warnings and requests regarding security may not be necessary. That said, this is an event where an ambassador was killed representing the country overseas, both a rare and noteworthy event indeed. - ^theWOLFchild 16:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, thewolfchild, and SQL, I have fixed the inaccuracy regarding the two different locations of the attacks, which I believe Scjessey stated was his "primary concern," or at least one of them. I propose this:

During the evening of September 11, 2012, Islamic militants attacked the United States Embassy in Benghazi, killing American Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith. Several hours later, on the morning of the 12th, an attack was launched against a United States compound 1.2 miles away, which killed CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. Obama and Secretary Clinton have both received substantial criticism for allegedly not having paid proper attention to security or headed warnings of danger.^[1]

References

^ Cass, Connie. A summary of various elements of the story of the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi, Libya Fox News. 12 May 2014. Web. Retrieved 13 February 2016.

Display name 99 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Have you read the latest version of that paragraph? It's been corrected. I would think that if anything, the last sentence could use some tweaking. But, we'll have to wait until the page is unlocked. - ^theWOLFchild 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I posted the above statement while unaware of the revisions already made to the paragraph or of the temporary protection in light of the edit conflicts. It appears that the changes made, although done in good faith, are inaccurate because they state that 4 people died at the first location and 2 at the second. In reality, 2 people died at each place. What I posted above seems to convey these facts well. With the confusion about the time and place of the attacks fixed, I see absolutely no reason for anyone to object to the content above. Clinton is not accused of anything-it is merely stated that she and Obama received criticism, which is an obvious fact- and the source has been ruled reliable enough. Display name 99 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a minor typo. All that's needed is to have "Four Americans;" removed. I think we should avoid any superfluous details and stick to the core points of the incident. - ^theWOLFchild 22:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There are still two significant problems here. The source is almost two years old, and much has happened since then. As a result, the paragraph reflects an old narrative that does not represent a fair summary of the event and its aftermath. You cannot say Obama and Clinton received criticism, but then ignore the subsequent stuff about umpteen investigations, two high-profile appearances by Clinton at hearings, the failure of Republicans in Congress to fund security improvements, the rejection by the Ambassador of additional security, and the shocking politicization of the hearings to disrupt Clinton's election campaign. What you have now, while somewhat accurate, is still a shockingly one-sided (and thus non-neutral) piece. That is why the paragraph needs to be removed and worked on in this space until it comes up to snuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether it was 2 years ago or 22 years ago, the facts are the facts. The attack happened, on that date, at that place, involving those people. 4 died, same names then as now. Both Obama and especially Clinton received a great of deal criticism for it. That's what it says... what is incorrect or not a fact? The source is reliable, and the age is irrelevant because those particular facts haven't changed. Now with that said, it seems you want to add info now. Whether it's to update sources, shift blame to the republicans or to try and show Clinton and Obama as somehow exonerated... well, that is where you write something up and present it here on the talk page for discussion. I asked you to do this before and you refused. You can always change your mind... - ^theWOLFchild 22:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Scjessey, you can add a second source if you want. As for your concerns about neutrality, all of the investigations and inquiries count under the word "criticism." Basically, this paragraph is a very brief summary of a very complicated thing, with more to be found on the Benghazi attacks article and on the Hillary Clinton biography. It may be possible for you to add an extra sentence or two concerning the subsequent investigations if you so desire, as long as you leave non-neutral wording such as "shocking politicization" out of the article. However, wouldn't that that contradict your previous statements regarding WP:Undue weight, as things would seemingly begin to drift further from Obama and into the Clinton realm? This is because, while "criticism" applies to both Obama and Clinton, investigations apply only to Clinton. Display name 99 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

My view is that the paragraph should not be in the article, but if it must be then it needs to have those other things I mention in order to make it neutral. Currently it reflects a narrative created by Republican talking points. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Why don't you write up a version to propose here on the talk page, written the way you'd like to see it, along with the refs you'd like to see attached to it. - ^theWOLFchild 22:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove disputed paragraph

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the disputed paragraph that was added here while the discussion of whether or not to include contentious material continues above. In its current form, it does not represent a fair summary of the political and biographical ramifications of the 2012 Benghazi attack as it pertains to the subject of this article. Moreover, in what arguably can be considered a violation of WP:BLP, it makes allegations about former Secretary Hillary Clinton (who is not the subject of this article) and does so with a dated source of dubious quality. A fuller justification can be found in an earlier section of this talkpage. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: That paragraph has been repeatedly inserted and removed over the past couple of days. I'm not adding or removing anything related to this without consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: - Can you make the small correction, as noted above? Right now there is a factual error, but simply removing the words "Four Americans;" from the beginning of the second sentence will resolve it for now. I wouldn't think that anyone would have a problem with this. Hopefully in the coming days we can get some more people involved, have a productive discussion and come to a consensus on how to proceed with this paragraph. - ^theWOLFchild 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't going to ask for a removal or bug you about protecting the page(without a request), but this answer is both unacceptable and you should not be the one deciding. You protect the page with the contested paragraph still in the article. If editors challenge an addition to the article, it's incumbent upon the editors who want the information placed into the article to achieve consensus to add it into the article, not the editors who do not want the edit placed into the article. That's Wiki policy 101. Dave Dial (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That's generally correct, but with all the to and fro I can't actually determine what the "status quo" is. The diff supplied by Scjessey is certainly not the first insertion of this paragraph. That said, if we can get a rough consensus for removal I will do so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Still though, that is kind of backwards. The consensus should be achieved before it is added, not to remove contested material in a BLP. It was first added here, the version before it was added is here. My problems with the edit are listed here. I do not think the article should include the edit until it is discussed and the problems are addressed, but I am will to say consensus is against me after a time, if that is the case. But it should not be edit warred into the article and have the page protected to make it impossible to remove. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems it was added earlier than this, sometime in February, so that is not the first time is was inserted. I can only point you towards The Wrong Version. Continue to discuss and if there is consensus to remove I'll do so forthwith. It's nothing so horrendous that it can't stay for a few hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In the meantime, the small correction? - ^theWOLFchild 23:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've no issue with the correction. I'm involved or I'd make the change myself. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This minor correction will do fine. Display name 99 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be removed — if not immediately, then as soon as protection expires. This kind of editing in partisan political material is terribly inappropriate, both in substance and editing process. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How is it "partisan"...? - ^theWOLFchild 01:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The accusations against the President and Secretary of State, members of one political party, were made more or less exclusively by operatives of the opposing party for political purposes. That's the definition of partisan, on one side or another of a political division. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait, whom precisely are you accusing of being operatives of what, exactly? SQL ^{Query me!} 01:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Whom = politicians and pundits accusing Obama and Clinton of misdeeds and failures relating to the Benghazi attacks; what = United States Republican Party. It's pretty basic. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Um, ok... well, here at Wikipedia we cite facts reported in reliable sources, such as media outlets, not "operatives from opposing political parties". These facts are not always flattering to the subject of the BLP article they're included in, but that is not a factor. As long as the info is relevant, neutral and sourced there is no reason to exclude it. - ^theWOLFchild 02:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Those are some of the threshold inclusion criteria, yes. The information here isn't relevant to the biography, it isn't factual, and it is not sourced. In fact, the source cited here says exactly what I pointed out, that it was the subject of partisan politics, not criticism. That sort of thing belongs in articles about party politics, and in fact it is in those articles, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the relevance is debatable, but AFAIC, the significance of the event is what makes it relevant. The factuality is not in dispute. What is written in that passage are indeed facts. And of course it's sourced, see the attached ref. If you want to dispute that, then WP:RSN is the place to go. What this boils down to is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - ^theWOLFchild 02:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You're not even making sense. You have not addressed any of the concerns Wikidemon has illustrated, and none of the concerns I've addressed above. All based on Wiki policy. You can continue to claim that it's only because we don't like it, but that is shown to be a straw man. And it is up to those in favor of inclusion to establish consensus to add the paragraph, which has not happened. Dave Dial (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the concerns Wikidemon has illustrated - Um, do you mean the comment where I addressed it on a point. by. point. basis? Relevance. Facts. Sources. What else is there? Everything's covered, it's just that YOUDIDNTHEARIT. - ^theWOLFchild 02:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, what Wikidemon said. As should be obvious. And as I've outlined in a minor way above. Which discussion was ended by protecting the page with the edit included in the article. And the page was protected not for 24 hours, but for 48 hours. Dave Dial (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The text in question states a fact-that Obama and Clinton received substantial criticism regarding their handling of the events. Nowhere does it claim that these criticisms are justified or not. I do not believe that anyone supporting the inclusion of the paragraph has attempted to argue either way on the talk page. Rather, it is people who oppose the inclusion of these words that are employing their own political beliefs and trying to blame everything on the Republicans. Under the guise of following BLP rules, they are attempting to delete a totally factual, relevant, and well-sourced sentence. Wikidemon, you have said this:

"The information here isn't relevant to the biography, it isn't factual, and it is not sourced."

As has been identified above, the information is entirely relevant to the biography. The fact that a foreign ambassador was killed in the line of duty, which had not happened previously since 1988, makes it so. Furthermore, is entirely factual once the minor numbering errors are removed. Clinton has been investigated for her conduct and many have claimed that she did not do enough to ensure the safety of the Americans in the country. The Fox News article clearly states that. How are these comments not criticism? Finally, I don't even know what to say about your ridiculous claim that the content is "not sourced." Display name 99 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Only 6 Ambassadors have been killed in office in the history the US. - ^theWOLFchild 07:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to the May 12, 2014 AP news piece, published by Fox, it does not use the word "criticism" once, much less say that Obama or Clinton received it. Quite the contrary, it describes the incident as a "controversy" and a "political rallying cry", saying that "political reaction to the Benghazi attack quickly formed along partisan lines that hold fast to this day" and that "Clinton is the prime political target of the Benghazi probes". Not sourced means failing WP:V, statements are made in the article text that are not traced to any source. Linking to a source that says something else does not source the content. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If you would like additional, up-to-date sources, including ones that specifically state Obama and Clinton received criticism for this incident... no problem! Why didn't you say so in the first place? (How many long hard seconds of Google searching do you think it'll take to find such refs?) - ^theWOLFchild 07:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have neutral sources of due weight to back up the disputed proposal, the least you could do is provide them. I doubt that's going to happen, because framing a partisan controversy as criticism is inapt. WP:V goes without saying, it's fundamental. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously...? That's what you think is going here? A "partisan controversy"...? You need to relax and lay off with the accusations. I've already said the last sentence could use some tweaking and some more refs should be added. There's no need for the hostility. - ^theWOLFchild 10:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

What I think is not important, and there is no need for you to take or make anything personal here. Benghazi is a partisan controversy, not a criticism of the President, per the single source cited. You are arguing to include some disputed content that has not so far been supported by sources. I doubt there are sources to back it up, and stated my reason, but you're welcome to try. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You make it sound if this was some minor event, that has been largely manufactured by the opposition as a smear campaign. There was a an attack on a Diplomatic Mission. That is a major event. An ambassador, and 3 others, died. That is a major event. There were failures on the part of the gov't that contributed to this. That is a fact. Obama and Clinton were in charge and therefore bear responsibility. That is a fact. I'm not sure what it is you don't get about this. If Bill Clinton's page can include content about his being impeached for lying about getting a blow-job, then surely the murder of a United States Ambassador is worthy of mention as well. The passage and it's refs could stand some improvement, but I, along with the others here, see no reason to summarily remove it altogether. - ^theWOLFchild 10:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"Obama and Clinton were in charge and therefore bear responsibility." By that rationale, Obama is responsible for all the carbon dioxide America has poured into the atmosphere since he took office. Also all the murders. Also the sub-$2 gas prices. Obviously those statements are bullshit as well. Why have Republicans not blamed the head of the CIA for the deaths of the 2 CIA contractors? Because the head of the CIA isn't running for President as a Democrat, perhaps? This is what Wikidemon was talking about when he talked about it being a partisan thing. Either it has to come out entirely, or it needs to be completely rewritten to include all the significant viewpoints, such as how the matter was highly politicized. And if you do that, you get into undue weight issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

But haven't Clinton and Obama already accepted responsibility? Leaving the rest of this rhetoric moot. - ^theWOLFchild 22:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have gone above and beyond in showing your POV in comparing this to the sideshow against Bill Clinton, and your words written here confirm that you yourself blame both Obama and Clinton for a fucking terrorist attack on an US Embassy in Libya. When if you look at my post above, there have been many attacks on Embassies, and none of them mentioned in the President at the time biographies. There is no doubt this is a partisan attack from Republicans, no doubt. And even the source you and your cohorts are providing state that. ~~Also, Martin, it was highly inappropriate to edit the contested passage while you protected the page.~~ Dave Dial (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Like is said... it's just a discussion. There is no need to invest so much emotion in this. Focus on the content, not the contributors. - ^theWOLFchild 22:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, my "partisan" comment was directed at the content, that the controversy is partisan in nature, not the editors here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

In response to concerns, I typed the words "Benghazi criticism" into Google Search. I reached [1]] article from ABC News as the 5th option. In addition to having the word "Criticisms" in the title, it also includes that word or some derivative of it 7 times in the body of the article. What more do you need? Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. This does not stand for the proposition that Obama received substantial criticism, or Clinton either. It reports that in a "leaked chapter" of Clinton's now-released book, Hard Choices, she refutes Republican critics vis-a-vis Benghazi. 'Criticism' and 'critic' are different words. Criticism, in the sense used, is an expression of disapproval of somebody or something based on a good faith perception of faults, motives, or mistakes. A critic of someone is not making judgments about whether to approve or disapprove, they are a detractor. This piece, and the great majority of others covering her book chapter, describe this as a reaction to Republican critics, not to widespread disapproval. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Checking back here to see if any consensus has developed yet, but I can't see any. I've added a low profile maintenance template, to indicate there is some dispute over the inclusion. In the end, if there is no consensus for inclusion it should probably be removed I guess. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

We're going to remove content just because a couple of users don't like it? While there is always room for improvement, I think this is backwards - without consensus to remove, it should stay. - ^theWOLFchild 00:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously - what's it going to take? Here's a short list mentioning response to Obama being criticized over Benghazi.

This is, of course leaving out the apparently unacceptable fox news articles, and any outlet that might have even a small non-left tilt. He has pretty clearly received substantial criticism regarding Benghazi. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No, no, and no. Quite likely nothing is going to help because what you are trying to source — that Obama was the subject of criticism over Benghazi, as opposed to partisan political detractors, does not appear to be what the neutral mainstream sources report. If we get past that, or found language describing it like the sources do as a partisan controversy rather than a criticism, we have a weight issue. Is it really biographically significant about the President that this one controversy, among twenty or thirty that his Republican detractors tried to hang on him, became a big deal for them in 2014-2015? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. We don't report all the controversies from earlier news cycles (Ayers, the birthers, etc.) but we do report at least one in passing, resigning from Jeremiah Wright's church, but that one, involving his religious affiliation, does seem more biographical and directly related to him. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The simple fact is that there is already a section for Libya. It's entirely appropriate to include the Benghazi attack and the fact that an ambassador was killed. Can we agree on at least that much?

As for any criticism or fallout faced by Obama and his cabinet, I'm sure if we add some additional sources, we can agree what should (or shouldn't) be added and how it should be worded. - ^theWOLFchild 00:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The "small non-left tilt" jab is cute, but irrelevant. Those sources still state the attacks are from Republicans and there is no mainstream criticism of Obama for a terrorist attack on an Embassy based in Libya. As for edit warring the paragraph into the article and then claiming you need consensus to remove it, that's absurd, and shows that editors have no real understanding of Wiki policy. Dave Dial (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

So, just because it's from Republicans means the criticism is both invalid, and non-mainstream - if I'm interpreting your comment correctly? I've been around for about 10 years, I'm not a new editor. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you have claimed that these "criticisms" are not what "neutral mainstream sources" report upon. One of the articles cited came from CNN. CNN and Fox are both mainstream sources. Fox is often considered slightly right-leaning, while CNN is often considered slightly left-leaning, although they are both neutral enough to generally be considered mainstream. "Criticism" is a totally accurate word, and can be used to describe those who claim that Clinton and Obama did not adequately prepare for or deal with the crisis. Dave Dial, I believe that SQL is absolutely right. Articles report upon comments and criticism from all fronts. Regarding your edit warring comments, Wikipedia policy clearly states that it takes two to edit war. You cannot blame it all on a different group of editors simply because they disagree with you. With this statement, as well as various attempts to inject your own political philosophy into the article, I now question your understanding of Wikipedia policy. I would now like to pose a question to everyone. At what point in the article is it stated that Obama and Clinton are responsible for what happened in Benghazi? I believe that the answer is nowhere. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The CNN piece and the other mainstream sources report it as a partisan effort, not criticism. The difference between the two ought to be obvious. If we do cover it, it would have to be neutral, something like "Following an attack by [describe] on the US Embassy that killed [four?] people, including the US ambassador, Republicans [describe statements] and began [briefly describe Benghazi committee]". This is not terribly biographical, but if we are going to have a section on Libya, this is a significant part (from an American point of view, if not the flow of world events) of the story of recent US involvement in Libya. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's amazing that both of the links you have provided deal mostly with HRC and the embassy attack, in which they either barely or have no mention of Obama. And yet this is the Barack Obama BLP. And you do not think that editors of good conscience would have a problem with that or be able to see that there was some sort of agenda being pushed? It's kind of obvious. Dave Dial (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Does this satisfy you?

During the evening of September 11, 2012, Islamic militants attacked the United States Embassy in Benghazi, killing American Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith. Several hours later, on the morning of the 12th, an attack was launched against a United States compound 1.2 miles away, which killed CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. Obama and Secretary Clinton have both received substantial criticism for allegedly not having paid proper attention to security or headed warnings of danger, leading to an investigation of the events and major political controversy. ^[1]^[2]

References

^ Cass, Connie. A summary of various elements of the story of the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi, Libya Fox News. 12 May 2014. Web. Retrieved 13 February 2016.

^ Viebeck, Elise. Demirjian, Karoun. Republicans moving full steam ahead with Benghazi investigation Washington Post. 23 October 2015. Web. Retrieved 5 March 2016.

Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: - Minor point, it wasn't an "embassy", it was a Diplomatic Mission, and for the second location, "CIA outpost" would be a better fit. - ^theWOLFchild 18:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

No, for reasons repeated many times already. What the two cited sources support is a sentence like "Following an attack on the temporary U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya, Republican lawmakers in the US House began a far-reaching investigation into the incident." We should find a way to say that nothing substantive ever came out of the investigation, although a number of accusations were aired by the committee. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I put "clinton criticism benghazi" and "obama criticism benghazi into Google and found all kinds of reliable sources reporting that Clinton and Obama faced a great deal of criticism because of this incident. It shouldn't matter that it's primarily coming from the right side of the government for that itself is quite significant. The fact is these politicians are lawmakers and they represent the people. If multiple major news outlets are reporting this, then is certainly worthy of inclusion here. - ^theWOLFchild 18:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion after page protection lifted

@Wikidemon: - Unbelievable, no sooner does the page lock come off that you rush in to remove the passage. In fact you were sooo hurried that you removed the wrong content! (your preview button doesn't work?). Then you actually went ahead and arbitrarily added your own content? It doesn't work that way and you know it. There is an ongoing discussion here regarding that content, involving multiple editors. You should have proposed your addition here for everyone to decide on. I in fact asked you to propose a change here several times and you flat out refused. What ever changes are made, will be done by consensus, not just whatever you decide on your own. I'm not saying the current passage has to stay the way it is (I've said all along it could use some changes and additional sources), but we will all decide together what changes are made. Seriously, just get with the program already. - ^theWOLFchild 20:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: - perhaps the page lock should stay in place until this is resolved... - ^theWOLFchild 20:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You are 100% out of line, and need to back off, immediately. I'll respond more fully presently, but I'll be giving you an edit warring caution, and I urge you to self-revert yet another attempt to wedge POV, poorly sourced, non-consensus content into the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL! You are amusing, I'll give you that... - ^theWOLFchild 21:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote before edit-conflicting multiple times with 2 uses, and immediately after I saw Wikidemon's revert:

"Wikidemon, actually, something substantive did come out of the investigation. It was the investigation into the attacks was largely responsible for the revelation of the fact that Clinton used a private email server. Please see here and here. Denying this further is pure insanity. Also, I noticed that you reverted the paragraph once the block expired. However, the "nutshell" section of WP:Content removal clearly states this:

− ::'When removing content from a page, it is important to be sure there is consensus to do so.

− ::So, regarding the issue of whether or not the paragraph should be in the article as this discussion continues, WP policy is clearly against you. As such, I have reverted your change. Do NOT change it. "

− ::Obviously, thewolfchild taken care of the revert. WP policy still states that no removal should take place without consenus. As such, Wikidemon's actions were totally inexcusable. Display name 99 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

For goodness sake, you too? I'm the only one around here who is editing responsibly. Please try to learn how Wikipedia works before you blithely make dumb accusations like that. Disputed material stays out unless there is a consensus to add it. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Evidently you shouldn't have bothered to introduce a more balanced edit for the article. Seems that the editors who insist on the POV edit weren't satisfied. So there is not consensus for any mention, so everything should stay out until there is. Dave Dial (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon and Dave Dial, how do you explain the "nutshell" section of the WP:Content removal article, which clearly states that "When removing content from a page, it is important to be sure there is consensus to do so"? Wikidemon, please try to learn how Wikipedia works before you blithely make dumb reverts like that. Display name 99 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That is simple, you cannot edit war your edit into the article and then claim editors need consensus to remove it. Period. If you and other editors do not understand that, you should not be editing any BLP articles. Dave Dial (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Any contentious material (which this most certainly is) must be removed until a consensus exists to include it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Indeed", you certainly seem to think it's contentious, but that doesn't mean it is. - ^theWOLFchild 21:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither can you edit war a paragraph out of the article and then claim you need consensus to re-add it. It is entirely inappropriate to pounce on an article the moment a block expires and remove content when there is no consensus to do so. If you, Dave Dial, and Wikidemon can revert anything you want, I don't see why the rest of us cannot. Also, who reverted first? Display name 99 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's policy that contentious material be removed. In fact, it clearly states even WP:3RR can be suspended in such cases. You can only edit war contentious material in, not out. I initially removed the paragraph because I quite rightly saw it is a violation of WP:NPOV. In addition to being inaccurate, it represented a one-sided view of events. When the unaltered paragraph was re-added, I reverted it (twice) because it still violated WP:BLP. I have not edited the article since changes begun to be made to the paragraph, including after the page protection. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinions with us, but this content is not "contentious" simply on your say-so. Four experienced editors, including an admin, disagree with you. A second admin locked that content in place. Clearly your assertions that this content is "contentious, POV, one-sided and inaccurate" are spurious. There are plenty of reliable sources supporting the remarks made in that passage. Wikipedia includes facts, even if they don't suit the BLP subject, or you. Since the content was not a BLP vio, there is no 3RR exemption to remove it which means the only edit-warriors here are your little trio of buddies. This is a clear case of you don't like it... that's all this is. - ^theWOLFchild 14:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No. You are wrong about almost everything there, I'm afraid. First of all, it was absolutely contentious because (a) it was flat out wrong, and (b) it was non-neutral, because it gave an incomplete description of what happened. There's no grey area there, so it was actually fucking necessary to remove it. Secondly, the opinion of an administrator has no more value than the opinion of any other editor. Locking the page with this fucked up content in place was an error by the administrator, who presumably had bought into your bullshit instead of seeing the paragraph for what it obviously is. The rest of your argument falls flat on its face because you lost the first part of the argument. I don't think I can make your failure as a Wikipedia editor any plainer than that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see... everyone is wrong but you. Got it. - ^theWOLFchild 14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

And by everyone, you mean three of you. When I think of everyone, I think of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

And somehow my duping 2 admins and 2 more experienced editors into following my commands, while inducing you into raging, tear-filled childish rants, is somehow evidence of my "failure as a Wikipedia editor"...? (oh, and I've decided to leave your insult in place to allow everyone you for what you are.) That is an interesting theory. And by "interesting", I mean stupid. But I will say, this is entertaining. Please... post something else. - ^theWOLFchild 16:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Recap

Just to recap here, policy is that disputed changes — additions or deletions — should not be made to articles without consensus. A group of editors, some with problematic editing histories arrived a few days ago to try to add a paragraph about the Benghazi attacks, leading to protection of the article. The protecting admin noted that no consensus seems to have emerged, so that the material "should probably be removed".[2] I did so, citing the talk page discussion and the admin's comments.[3] To try to break the logjam, I tried an approach that has sometimes worked to resolve other content disputes I've seen, adding a carefully written neutral, compromise version of the proposed text that incorporates as much of the disputed version as I could, but sticks to the sources and also matches (in this case copies) from more detailed treatment in other Wikipedia articles. I described this in the edit summary as a "trial balloon" that I was floating, [4] and offered to remove it again if there was no consensus on my wording. This immediately drew a scolding revert from one of the editors promoting the paragraph.[5] I followed up by removing the section per my earlier comment[6] and the editor went right back to edit warring[7] and posted the insulting screed at the top of the previous subsection. Bottom line, either we agree on a neutral, acceptable sentence or paragraph to add the Benghazi attacks to the Libya section, or that content stays out until we do. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and guess that the editors are just misguided about content, not paying attention, and/or possibly have a WP:COMPETENCE problem. One of the editors has five recent blocks for edit warring and personal attacks[8] and apparently doesn't know WP:TALK and thinking it's okay to use, then edit war over, loaded talk page headings.[9] Another is just off an indef block.[10]). But that's really no good reason to be behaving this way, trying to edit war disputed content on an article. Toning down on the ridiculous accusations and insults would be welcome as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. - "I'm going to assume good faith and..." ...then demonstrate I don't know the first thing about it by posting a lengthy rant where I insult the shit outta' everyone I disagree with. Just... wow. - ^theWOLFchild 21:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidemon, based upon your claims that nothing substantive came of the investigation, what is your response to me noting that the investigation helped expose the email controversy? We may be able to add that neither Obama or Clinton has been formally indicted for anything related to the events, but the idea that "nothing substantive" came out of the investigation does not seem like a fair representation. Display name 99 (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

[out of order, responding to proposal] Are you serious about saying that neither Clinton nor Obama have been "formally indicted"? Might as well say that Gowdey and Boehner were never formally charged with terrorism. Even being generous here, Clinton's email server controversy is not a substantive result, it's a second controversy triggered by the first. That doesn't mean that the nexus isn't worth commenting on, just that it's a result of the investigation not an outcome. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: - there's no point. Clearly this trio does whatever the hell they please, takes WP:IAR waaay too literally and are willing to tag-team/ edit-war any sourced content of encyclopaedic value out that doesn't conform to their personal agenda and likewise TT/EW any POV nonsense in that does. And they will do so to the point of chasing off others who are simply trying to collaborate [see SQL]. I'm out for now... but I'll come back after the election when I'm sure we'll find their interest here has curiously waned. (Until then, it's obvious... Benghazi never happened! The Republicans faked it... just like the moon landings!.) Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 11:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That didn't last long, did it? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it didn't. Your rage out-lasted my patience. - ^theWOLFchild 14:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Listen, TWC. If you would not have had a total freakout when Wikidemon attempted to remove the POV edit, and restore an attempt of a compromise mention(in which you restored the contested edit), this may have played out very differently. And pointing to SQL's attacks only show that in addition to making many mistakes(In many places, AIV, AN3, closings) since he has returned from an almost 7 year break(yea, his "I've been here 10 years is mostly bs), he is not long for the bit if he continues down the path he's chosen. There could have been a constructive discussion about the edit and if it should be included, and any tweaks that should be made. Even though I have opposed mention in this BLP, I was open to listen to Wikidemon's attempts to include. But both you and Display99 have continued to just insists on POV and BLP violations. So I just say, oh well, time to move on now. Dave Dial (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you even read anything you post on these talk pages? An example of a "total freak-out" would be any one of your many, many profanity-laced, insult-laden, off-topic, rage-filled rants. You are incapable of focusing on content and will always attack contributors instead. Your attack on SQL here is way out of line. I strongly suggest you show some maturity, strike your comments, post a sincere apology and then take a break from the project until you think you can collaborate without constantly attacking fellow editors. - ^theWOLFchild 16:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, as annoyed as I am by the total freak-out and the "LOL" doubling down on insults when called on that and their editing history, this editor said they're leaving so let's not poke them on their way out. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

thewolfchild is right. Wikidemon, based upon your outrageous stubbornness and insistence upon having this article reflect your own personal views, I think it's time we decided to leave. As others have said, it's better to have no Benghazi paragraph at all than some POV-laden piece of garbage. I'll leave things the way they are for now. Display name 99 (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Close?

That was certainly weird and unpleasant. Can we mark this thread closed? Better keep an eye out for sockpuppets. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha. That's a rhetorical question... right? - ^theWOLFchild 02:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Pres. Obama criticized for attacks on rule of law

This example is but one of many, but is novel & interesting. As noted upthread, criticisms of Pres. Obama are mostly notable for their absence in our article.

Mary Anastasia O'Grady, the WSJ's Latin America correspodent, wrote, in her The Americas wekly column, March 6, 2016, paywalled:

"If elected, Mr. Trump would inherit a country where the rule of law is already under attack by President Obama. Long-winded and ruling by decree whenever Congress—the constitutionally coequal branch of government—does not accommodate him, Mr. Obama is a classic Latin American demagogue."

Context is her criticism of candidate Trump who, she writes, " promises to override institutional inertia and simply decree whatever is on his mind, like a caudillo. This won’t end well." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs) 21:31, 08 March 2016

Guaranteed this won't go anywhere, particularly as there's no attempt to suggest how to improve the article. And frankly, nobody cares about the views of a conservative libertarian who writes for the Murdoch Street Journal. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Opinions: everyone's got one, but they don't all belong on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Syria, Ukraine and Putin

This article does not contain any relevant information about Obama's Syrian policy. For example https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/06/president-obama-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/

There is still no word about Ukrainian crisis and Obama's attitude to this matter. And the name of the Russian president is mentioned only once.

Greetings from Prague --JéeM84 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is primarily about Barack Obama himself. Perhaps Presidency of Barack Obama is what you are looking for? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the fifth paragraph of the Foreign Policy section the article incorrectly refers to Dmitry Medvedev as the President of Russia, he is in fact the Prime Minister of Russia. Somebody should fix this. 101.190.132.182 (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Dmitry Medvedev was President of the Russian Federation from 2008 to 2012. In 2010 it was the administration of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done Yes he is currently the Prime Minister of Russia. What the paragraph is talking about though happened in 2010. In 2010 Dmitry Medvedev was the President of Russia. -- GB fan 13:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Obama

I recently added "Mr. Obama" to the hatnote. The change was reverted. The "Mr. Obama" redirect was recently discussed at RfD. The result of the discussion was that it should remain targeted here per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, it is reasonable to add the term to the hatnote because of its ambiguity. Most of the other redirects to this article are generally unambiguous, already covered well by the other two listed, or are typos. Compared to other discussions above about this article, this issue seems rather benign, uncomplicated, and clear per an editing guideline.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The hatnote is already very long, and adding a little-used redirect like "Mr. Obama" will make it overlong with no real benefit. I would imagine the number of readers searching for people by "Mr. [name]" (and similar) would be minuscule. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Intro

"Barack Hussein Obama II is an American politician serving as the 44th President of the United States". Surely he's noted first and foremost for being "the 44th and current President of the United States". Why doesn't the intro say just that, like it used to? 141.6.11.23 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia attempts to standardize such articles, so you will find similar wording in the articles of other politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Actions relating to the presidential election

He's met with Bernie Sanders and talked about Trump multiple times, who has responded to him over and over again. Are those worthy of inclusion somewhere? Informant16 26 March 2016

No, this is a biography of his whole life - his meetings with Sanders and comments about Trump are not suficiently important to his life to include in his bio. Perhaps in the article about the election, but not here. Tvoz/talk 01:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Home town on infobox

Should the home town (Chicago, Illinois) be included in the infobox? A stupid question, sorry for the trouble I may cause. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure really. I don't see it on the infoboxes of past presidents, and it already shows his Kenwood, Chicago residence. I'd be inclined to say it probably isn't significant enough to include in an already-crowded infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And then you would have to define "hometown" - the city or town where one was born or grew up; or the place of one's principal residence or the town of one's present fixed residence. So, Honolulu? Chicago? DC? I think we leave it out of the shorthand infobox and let the text explain in prose. But no problem in raising the question! Tvoz/talk 18:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing Issues

This article needs some attention with online referencing. Quite a few sources are either dead or unable to connect. There is a list of references here that are either dead or have some sort of connectivity issues. Will211 |Chatter 03:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016

Useless request that has now descended into comparing the subject to a chimpanzee. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Somethings on this document are incorrect and need to be corrected and I will not go into further details about what is incorrect because I would like to edit this one. :) XLiquidLimex (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you don't want to explain there is nothing to do here. -- GB fan 22:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

How about the Flint Toxic Drinking Water Scandal?

The mismanagement at FEMA are still in office and all he's done, several years after the crisis became a scandal, was tour the camera pools drinking filtered water and stating the obvious. He is no more use to American citizens in need than the chimpanzee.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A few problems. It hasn't been "several years" after the crisis became a scandal, and FEMA is not the primary agency involved (or largely involved in any capacity). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thumbnail Question

Hi, I've personally got nothing wrong with it (as Obama was and is a terrible president), but I'm just wondering why the thumbnail is a picture of Osama Bin Laden. It's quite comical, but doesn't really have a purpose. Also, isn't this a protected (or semi-protected) page? Meaning only certain people should be able to edit it? Anyway, thanks! Jonahpoke92 (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any thumbnail of Osama bin Laden. Where are you seeing this? And Obama has been the greatest president since FDR, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's gone for some reason now, thanks! And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion... Jonahpoke92 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Barack Obama is Bi-racial and not fully African American. By saying he is the First African American President denies the fact that he is actually also white and of European Decent. Darth Wilcu (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to the FAQ at the top of this page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Should the FAQ really be "hidden" in a collapsed box? It´s not that easy to find for a new editor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a very fair point. If we must hide such things, let's hide the less important stuff like "American English" et al before we hide important stuff like the FAQ. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I BOLDly removed the hatting. It looks ok to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Obama's ethnicity / nationality

he is american or african-american? Slavic92 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Jonathunder (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Afro-American I.G.I.cool (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The two terms are not at odds with one another and one does not preclude the other. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP and religion in infobox

Religion in infobox has been removed from the featured Hillary Clinton BLP, on grounds that it violates WP:BLP. I removed it here, but was reverted, and will stick with 1RR. What do people think?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you should make an RfC. It does not seem likely that you didnt realize that this deletion would be contentious. And frankly your argument seems disingenious to put it mildly. There are prominent reasons why Obama's religious identity is a different kind of issue than Clinton's.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I will start an RFC. Obviously, the Clinton and Obama cases are not identical, but I don't think the differences require a different outcome under WP:BLP. There's nothing disingenuous about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a question of editorial judgment not of BLP or some core policy. Guy Macon is completely wrong in his idea that there can be or should be a general solution across all presidential infoboxes - that is not how policy works in wikipedia (except for MOS issues). Even when we have sitewide policies on content (and I think it is quite arguable whether we have that regarding religion), they still have to be interpreted locally.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I will start an RFC within a day or so, either here or at the Clinton article, unless someone beats me to it, or we reach consensus first, or the two featured BLPs treat religion the same in the infoboxes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that is clearly the right approach if you find it necessary to press the issue.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, can we spare the extended discussion until an RfC? There's an overarching question regarding religion as an infobox parameter for American national-level politicians project-wide, and then a question of how that applies to each article. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Obama is not our first black president he is biracial. This is spelled out in the very text of this page stating his mother was white. 173.13.61.181 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass shooting in Orlando

My proposition for the main article: "Under Obama administration on June 12, 2016 in Orlando happened the deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history. At least 50 people were killed; another 53 people were injured in the shooting." put this into the Gun control section. Obngfs (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not clear how that's directly related to the section topic though. WP:TOOSOON. Wait until something (if anything) comes of it. If he starts pushing for gun control measures or some actual change occurs, then we include it. Until then, we wait. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, "under Obama administration" seems to assign blame for the shooting on Obama and his administration. Of course, that would be ridiculous. I'm sure ~~Gundle2600~~ the original poster did not mean to say that, right? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

serve openly gay

Someone keeps reverting my edit because they apparently don't understand this: Gays have always served as openly in the military as anyone else, and it would be rude to imply otherwise. What they were prevented from doing is being open about being gay. They were prevented from serving openly gay, not from serving openly. --Espoo (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem isn't necessarily with what you are trying to say. The problem is with how you are trying to say it. Your construct boils down to "gay people serving openly gay," which sounds just plain weird. The way it is currently written, it is implied that we are talking about openly gay and lesbian people serving openly as gay and lesbian people, but the redundancy in what I just wrote should be obvious. Besides, I disagree with what you are trying to say anyway. I would think gays and lesbians serving in the military want to be treated like everyone else in the military, regardless of whether people know they are gay or lesbian. Flip the argument around and ask yourself if straight people want to serve openly straight. That's just as weird, if you ask me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The obvious logical solution is to remove the unnecessary first "gay" from the sentence. "Serve openly" is not logical, so "gay" cannot be left out there. What you want to say is that people were allowed to serve openly gay, but even that is not good English. What you and many journalists are trying to say in a clumsy, awkward short way is "people were allowed to serve despite being openly gay".

Basically the problem is caused by the awkward shorthand expression without another verb combining "serve" and "openly" without "gay", but it's not much better with "gay". Better English would be to say that people were finally allowed to serve in the military even if they were openly gay.

Your comment about straight people makes absolutely no sense. They have always been able to show their sexual orientation openly. --Espoo (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Not clear to me what you think "openly gay" means. This has nothing to do with a person acting in a manner that others might perceive of as "gay" - that's not what the policy is addressing (maybe that's not what you're saying - I can't tell). So "despite" and "even if" are offensive, and incorrect in the context of the policy change. The point is that people are now allowed to serve without regard to what their sexual orientation is, and they no longer have to lie about it or hide it, or reveal it, or anything in between. It's now irrelevant. "Don't ask, don't tell" was an early well-intentioned attempt to reverse long-standing discrimination by saying we can't ask you and you shouldn't tell us. But in other words, you should lie about yourself, you cannot serve openly, in an open manner. Now the matter of a person's sexuality is irrelevant. It is no one's business. Gay people can serve in the same open manner as straight people. So "serving openly" is correct, and "serving openly gay" is not, and isn't even grammatically correct. Tvoz/talk 20:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Espoo, "serving openly" is a form of a widely-used idiom referring specifically to gay people not being required to hide their sexual orientation in order to serve in the military, work in any industry, be a scoutmaster, teacher, taxi driver, police officer, etc etc. Sjessey's reversion is the correct usage (and I would have made the same reversion). "Gay" is clear from the sentence and the context and adding it is redundant and awkward. And your comments They were prevented from serving openly gay, not from serving openly and Gays have always served as openly in the military as anyone else make no sense. Surely you understand that under the old policy, that Obama reversed, gay people were forced to lie about their identity in order to serve - I don't know in what way you think that means they served as "openly" as anyone else. They didn't have to lie about the fact that they were in the military? No, they had to lie about the fact that they were gay. No longer - now they can serve openly = in an open manner.Tvoz/talk 19:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Katefuller (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Barack Obama has a wife called Michelle, and two daughters; Malia and Sasha.

Not done - because the article already includes that - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't he a Muslim?

His religion is Islam, not Protestantism. This has been proven many times. Can someone change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.192.31.109 (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Aceusa" changed his religion to Islam, this constitutes vandalism to me as it's #1 not true, and #2 fits with stupid political views, not facts. I can't edit the page, however.

TheWaffleTruth (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Already done Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

MSheerin1705 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

He's 54 today and the existing template will change him to 55 tomorrow. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

MSheerin1705 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Blank request. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{age 54}} replaced by {{age 55}}

MSheerin1705 (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Barack Hussein Obama II (US: /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ^ⓘ;^[1]^[2] born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office and the first president born outside the continental United States AND WILL BE THE FUTURE FIRST BLACK FIRST GENTLEMAN.^[3] Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School between 1992 and 2004. While serving three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004, he ran unsuccessfully in the Democratic primary for the United States House of Representatives in 2000 against incumbent Bobby Rush.

Cofo6616 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

References

^ "Barak". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster., "Hussein". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster., "Obama". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster..
^ "Barak". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d. "Hussein". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d. "Obama". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d.
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvO3qV8kNVA&index=2&list=PLiZxWe0ejyv_G38cZQLQPSHPzoi1FddEU

Not done for obvious reasons. GAB^gab 23:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The references listed must be the weakest ones I've ever seen. To claim someone attended college, let alone graduated because of one book written by who knows, is ludicrous at best. However since wiki is liberal they will stick to his college experience as fact even if it was hand-written and posted on a bulliten board. Why not leave his education as "unknown" until proven by the source himself? I have a record and grade from each and every class I took my 4 years at Purdue. George W. Bush' and AL Gore jrs. Was leaked out. After 7.5 years of Obama, something would have leaked by now. The only thing he will admit is to doing drugs heavily. Put that in his education. What about when Sotero entered him in school as a Muslim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.105.17 (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

First sentence (again)

I reverted the first sentence to be in line with was agreed before, i.e. "... is an American politician currently serving as the 44th..." Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Merger of Section 5 of Presidency of Barack Obama into this article

Section 4 "Presidency (since 2009)" of this article has already one half of the byte count of Presidency of Barack Obama and Section 4 is the main part of the article as the whole article has 293 kBytes and Section 4 has 109 kBytes. But this article is viewed 45 times more often than the "main article" for the presidency. Presidency of Barack Obama is like a shadow article. --Fb8cont (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Compare with George W. Bush and Presidency of George W. Bush. These two articles separate the topic: The "Presidency"-article is mostly a collection of links to specific topics and the "Presidency"-section of the main article is a description/summary of the events. --Fb8cont (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Update:Only merger of Section 5 ("Policies", ~ 178 kBytes) into this article. As most content is a duplicate the byte count would only increase by 70 kB or less as most topics have links to special articles. Why the effort? Because now there are these two articles both portraying to give the summary of his presidential policies: One read by 45 times more people than the other. --Fb8cont (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose We don't need to make a large article even larger by merging in a common and well-defined subtopic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose If anything, we should trim Barack_Obama#Presidency (since_2009) so that it's a summary of Presidency of Barack Obama, not merge it into this one so that this article becomes unmanageable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per Neil's arguments Orser67 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose No, obviously. If people can't be bothered clicking the links, they won't bother to read the merged text anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

barack

tell me about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuacash123 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

He's just this guy, you know. (Also, he's got an entire article on him here, so you could probably start there.) clpo13_(talk) 18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Book : The Long Game - How Obama Defied Washington and redefined America's role in the world

written by Derek Chollet, look inside here.

Imo worth to mention in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Neun-x, I added it to List of books and films about Barack Obama. I don´t think it needs to be mentioned in this article, but it may be usable as a source here or in one of the sub-articles. I haven´t read it (or about it) so I have no real opinion on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Another book

At List of books and films about Barack Obama I found this interesting title [11]: 1,249 well sourced examples of Barack Obama's lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc. It´s quite catchy, and several commenters on amazon thinks very highly of it. However, my WP-sense tells me that maybe I ought to remove this. My question is, do I have a good WP-reason for doing so? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

In case this paper (pamphlet ?) has no or almost no public attention / perception we might remove it (the opposite: if it has a high number of downloads this is/would be a factor to keep it on the list.

16 hits => imo almost no public attention / perception . --Neun-x (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed it. Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder? can be at least be found at goodreads.com and wnd.com. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"urged Turkish and Kurdish forces to end their clashes in northern Syria"

@Fb8cont has added it ; Muboshgu has reverted it ("WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, please suggest edits on the talk page before making any more").

@Muboshgu : I don't see any recentism in it. It is not a matter of days or a few weeks that kurdish men fight (supported by US advisers, material and afaik also by advisers sent by Germany) against IS fighters. Seen in the context that Erdogan has visited Putin in Mosciw a short time ago and that Erdogan puts much efforts in his fight against kurdish autonomy wishes ... it is imo obvious that this no simple or short-term "building yard" for Obama (and his successor).

? why did you write 'wp:undue' ? --Neun-x (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a fairly minor event in the grand scheme of Obama's life/this article. All of the other sentences in that paragraph (with the possible exception of Obama reaffirming his belief that "Assad must go" in 2015) are clearly fairly important events that help explain the situation in Syria and Obama's response to it. A sentence explaining the Kurdish role in the civil war and Obama's relations with them and the Turks could be worth adding, but this particular announcement doesn't seem to be particularly important to me. Orser67 (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

505.000 google-hits with the search words "Kurds" "Obama" "Erdogan".

those of them during the last month. --Neun-x (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It this is added is should be at the article about Obama's presidency not here.--67.68.20.73 (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Obama is not African American.

To call Obama black or African American is to say black genetics are superior to white genetics, this is racist. Obama had a white mother, and a black father. These genetics mixed and made a mixed race baby who is neither white nor black but both at the same time.

When we focus on him being black, we are saying "white genes don't matter" we are saying black is superior.

why do so many fall into this trap? and especially on wikipedia?

Take a look at his dad, and take a look at him. Still think he is black? He isn't black or white, he is a mixed race. he is the first mixed race president. He was not born in Africa, so he is not African American but only American.

Please stop racism and stop allowing this article to contain racism. 50.35.102.35 (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"To call Obama black or African American is to say black genetics are superior to white genetics, this is racist." No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't. "When we focus on him being black, we are saying "white genes don't matter" we are saying black is superior." For one, Black Americans are a minority in the United States, and beyond that, every president before him has been White. In no way, shape, or form is this racist. Dustin (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources call him African American and that is why Wikipedia does. Literally speaking, he is one of the very few technical African Americans since he really does have an African parent and an American parent. Although, Kenyan American would be more accurate or American Kenyan.KINGOFTO (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

He is an American, not a Kenyan, so between those two, only "Kenyan American" would be correct. Dustin (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please expand and read question #2 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Also, note the caution about this not being a WP:FORUM to discuss matters such as race that are unrelated to improving the article. As an encyclopedia we are a compendium of what other people say, namely reliable sources. It is not Wikipedia's place to challenge or change the conception of race in America or the words people use to describe it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

OP is apparently unaware of the one-drop rule, which, for a very long time, determined that any amount of black ancestry was enough to make a person black. I highly doubt the proponents of that rule considered white blood to be inferior. There are a lot of complicated reasons why people of mixed black and white heritage may be considered more "black" than "white" (see, for example, hypodescent, passing (racial identity), etc.), but as others have said, the only thing that matters for this particular article are the sources that refer to Obama as African American (of which there are many). clpo13_(talk) 18:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Marine1902 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC) he was the fiorst president of the usa

Not done: Not true. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Make this article even better

11/10/14 WH.gov

How about a video for the rather poor internet policy section?
–2A03:2267:0:0:4916:8BB6:930D:650E (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"...documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim..."

Washington Post source: I assume there is some reason this is not included..not notable maybe? I think it should be included, any opposed to that? 76.67.31.34 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

If there was anything to this it would have been exposed in Ihe 9 1/2 year timeframe between now and when this article was posted. Nor remotely worth covering.--64.229.164.105 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"anything to this" implies not true and "exposed" implies it is a "bad" thing, but AP and Washington Post are good sources and being registered in school as a Muslim is not a bad thing, so, respectfully, your comment seems off point. 76.67.31.34 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering if it was included long ago and removed for a legitimate reason. 76.67.31.34 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added it...I was not logged in (76.67.31.34) during the above discussion.KINGOFTO (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed as irrelevant. He isn't and wasn't a muslim, so what anything on his school certificate might or might not have said is of no biographical importance. This question is relevant only to the Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, which are not treated at all in this biography. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I was with you at the end of the first sentence. But any mention of conspiracy theories smacks of irrelevant strawman to me. Would not it be notable if John Kennedy had once been registered in school as being of the Jewish faith? I think its interesting and encyclopedic although I agree it is certainly not of major importance. I do not think the biography should be written with any consideration at all for conspiracy theories and it gives such theories power when used as a reason for not including some info.; on't you agree? KINGOFTO (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to include it. It is of zero relevance to Obama or interest to the sources, only to the sources describing a conspiracy theory that is not the subject of this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

And plus, The Washington Post is the only source out there which makes any straightforward statement of whether Obama is a Muslim, to which even the source itself, makes statements to the contrary, and therefore, any inclusion of this statement would give undue weight to what's actually stated in the source. Therefore, any statements about Obama being Muslim holds no historical significance and as such, is of zero relevance to Obama, and the speculation of whether he is Muslim is already covered within the conspiracy theories article as Wikidemon has already stated. You have to show multiple different sources citing that he's a Muslim and to show how that employs any historical significance before making any sort of mention in the article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

To Wikidemon and Mythdon, the Associated Press also carried the sourced article and this is a piece of info which I think is the kind of notable minutia that one expects to find in an encyclopedia. I also see the Chicago Tribune said "...being listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school, Strada Asisia, where he attended 1st through 3rd grades."[12] There are other sources which show photos of the registration. A critical thinking approach to whether or not to include this documentation does not benefit from any perceived attachment of the documentation to any sort of conspiracy theory. Just because a conspiracy theory exists does not justify omitting well sourced material that might also be used in the theory, for example, here is a section of Hitler's bio which would equally meet the rationale for exclusion you have given above, I think:

"Nazi official Hans Frank suggested that Alois's mother had been employed as a housekeeper for a Jewish family in Graz, and that the family's 19-year-old son Leopold Frankenberger had fathered Alois.[7] No Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, and no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence,[8] so historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish.[9][10]"

The assertion that the inclusion of this info equates to Obama "being" Muslim or was a Muslim is a false assertion, just as an assertion that the inclusion of the info about Hitler above is an assertion by Editors that he was a jew would also be false. The matter in question is not a statement about Obama being Muslim, it is a reference to an existing document, not a statement.KINGOFTO (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This looks like useful and relevant information that might be well worth including in the page *after* he steps down as President. While he remains President, though, there is far too high a risk that - while I agree with you it's just an interesting anecdotal sidebar to his life - it might be misinterpreted by those who don't understand such nuances. Put another way: while he's in office, particularly during the Presidential race, it's an attack on him and his side; once he's out, it's not an attack. So, I'd say leave it for now but perhaps resubmit next year. - DewiMorgan (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense to me.KINGOFTO (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Obama's religion is not nondenominational Christianity. He attends multiple Protestant churches and do not hold a membership in a one, single, definitive denomination. This is not nondenominational Christianity (that article describes people who attend nondenominational churches - a totally different thing from adhering to multiple ones).Ernio48 (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The parameter should be removed from the infobox per this Village Pump RfC. The specifics are covered satisfactorily within the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

117.248.36.21 (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Take out the fake middle name.

2602:30A:C09A:AA90:D4D6:1B2D:192B:D4DA (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done as it is not a "fake" - see the references - Arjayay (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20081206100640/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040802/2obama.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040802/2obama.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Need to add that trump will be next president after obama's term is over. 47.32.218.125 (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This was added to the infobox at 07.37 on November 9 and to the lead at 08.07 on November 9 - about 18 hours before your request - Arjayay (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it, because it is still speculation. We can only be certain once Trump is actually inaugurated, because anything could happen before then. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Nicknames

@Dr. K: re special:diff/751842249 we already mention at Barack_Obama#Education:

In his youth, Obama went by the nickname Barry.

This is supported by the listed source:

Wolffe, Richard (March 22, 2008). "When Barry Became Barack". Newsweek. Retrieved March 21, 2016.

I also notice it occurs in another source listed elsewhere on the page:

Gordon, Larry (January 29, 2007). "Occidental recalls 'Barry' Obama". Los Angeles Times. p. B1. Archived from the original on May 24, 2010. Retrieved May 12, 2010.

As for "no-Drama Obama" I didn't notice the 'blog' part of the URL https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/01/13/the-insiders-the-problem-with-no-drama-obama/ but there were lots of hits for it. Notably the No Drama Obama redirect has existed since 22 November 2008 which allowed me to do a targeted search for that year. Here are some others:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-weissman/no-drama-obamas-double-ro_b_135736.html (although absent in the URL I notice this also says "the blog", just pointing out as example of it being used 6 years prior to 2014)
http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/52030/ New York Mag "He won by being No Drama Obama."
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/11/obamas-first-drama-hillary-clinton Mother Jones (magazine) "the presidential transition of no-drama Obama"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/3502456/Barack-Obamas-aides-believe-he-has-made-a-mistake-in-hiring-Hillary-Clinton.html The Telegraph: The President-elect's campaign was tightly controlled, with very few uncoordinated leaks. The candidate was known as "No Drama Obama."

Would the last 3 be enough for NDO? Ranze (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Newsweek reference for "Barry" mentions that Obama told his family that he would not use that nickname any longer. Based on that fact and the fact that "Barry" is no longer used, I don't think that we can include it. The other nickname is not widely used to describe Obama, at least imo. This being a featured article, perhaps we need a few more opinions on this. Dr. K. 04:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Listing every possible name is not the purpose of Wikipedia. "No Drama Obama" is more of a slogan than a nickname, and is at any rate ephemeral word play. Presidents rarely have nicknames. OMG I am wrong: diff. Would someone please explain what an encyclopedia is. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It gets better. Check Special:Contributions/Ranze and wonder at Shillary. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you John. I completely agree. I hadn't seen that discussion at Hillary Clinton's article. It's surreal. For more, look at this proposal. Dr. K. 11:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Consider a separate article on Malia Obama

She is no longer a minor.

There is plenty of citations and articles about her.

There are other articles on all the presidential children of the past.

The White House didn't want an article but Malia is no longer a child but a high school graduate. Besides, this is English Wikipedia, not White House Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris New Yorker (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "The White House didn't want an article." I don't know where you heard this, but I guarantee there'd still be an article on Barack Obama and his wife even if they publicly stated they didn't want to have Wikipedia articles. Plus the statement "Besides, this is English Wikipedia, not White House Wikipedia." doesn't really help your argument. It would be better for you to point out in what way Family of Barack Obama#Malia and Sasha Obama does not suffice. Dustin (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; whether the White House wants an article or not is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It would not suffice if there are reliable sources that only cover Malia and not the Family of Barack Obama. Using the same logic, the Barack Obama article should not be allowed because there is a President of the United States article. It is simply manipulation if a Malia article is not allowed. BBBH (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Malia notable on her own? She wouldn't merit an article merely for being the President's child; Notability is not inherited. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree - just being the son / daughter of a famous person and having one's name mentioned in a number of publications is not a reason for a separate page. Else we would need a separate page for each US president's kid. Once Malia starts to accomplish achievements (gets elected as a senator or any high office?) she will have a page of her own. Notthebestusername (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Along this same topic, her being mentioned as going to Harvard should be removed from Barack's wikipedia page entirely. I don't see the relevance. --Curoi (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede sentence

The current lede sentence of the article says that Obama "...is the 44th and current President of the United States.." All the other articles about presidents define them as "an American politician who was/is the XXth president of the United States." In other words, they define what the person is like any other lede sentence, as well as their position as president. See George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. (This came to my attention because of a current debate at the Donald Trump article about what to put in his lede sentence.) I propose that the lede sentence here be changed to "... is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States." (The other articles do not appear to wikilink "American" or "politician".) Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can just look in the history, to see it was changed recently without discussion (allegedly because everyone would know the president is a politician). Perhaps it matters little, but sure just change it back to the way the others do it for, I guess, consistency (and if that is the way it was done when it passed FA). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Nevermind, I did it for you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see that. Thanks for fixing it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The very first statement says "..44th and current President of the United States.." which is misleading as Google shows this atop when searched for Barack Obama. I'd suggest removal of "current" or "and current" would suffice. Thanks Pradip.rahul (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done He is the current president and he will be the president until Donald Trump will be sworn in. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2016

This edit request to Barack Obama has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

AS per your definition of an African American, President Obama is the SECOND president with African blood, therefor he is NOT the first "African American" president. Please correct the record and identify him as the SECOND president with African American bloodline. The first being Dwight Eisenhower, who's Mother, via the Link bloodline, was of African decent.

This ongoing, false, designation place upon Obama is a disgrace to the honorable service of President Eisenhower to our contry. 2601:8C2:C000:6865:ECFB:B5A5:15E6:75E4 (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please give a reliable source with such a claim. 331dot (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done-Please provide reliable source.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 13:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a question

Exactly why aren't Trump and Pence listed as the successors of Obama and Biden on the respective articles? MB298 (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I saw above! MB298 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The Western Wall and the Ancient City-UN resolution

According to the last resolution the western wall belongs to the arab nation. OBAMA administration and the PLO are behind the resolution. Add it to the paragraph on ISRAEL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.191.66 (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

[1] Cass, Connie. A summary of various elements of the story of the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi, Libya Fox News. 12 May 2014. Web. Retrieved 13 February 2016.

[2] Cass, Connie. A summary of various elements of the story of the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi, Libya Fox News. 12 May 2014. Web. Retrieved 13 February 2016.

[3] Cass, Connie. A summary of various elements of the story of the deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi, Libya Fox News. 12 May 2014. Web. Retrieved 13 February 2016.

[4] Viebeck, Elise. Demirjian, Karoun. Republicans moving full steam ahead with Benghazi investigation Washington Post. 23 October 2015. Web. Retrieved 5 March 2016.

[5] "Barak". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster., "Hussein". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster., "Obama". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster..

[6] "Barak". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d. "Hussein". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d. "Obama". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d.

[7] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvO3qV8kNVA&index=2&list=PLiZxWe0ejyv_G38cZQLQPSHPzoi1FddEU

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]