Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Drone wars and Prism surveillance missing

There is nothing in this article about America's waging drone wars in the Middle East and Africa and nothing about the PRISM mass surveillence program. Can it be added or not? I believe this is the top current discussions about Obama's presidency at least at the moment. Nyttkonto (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Good luck getting the drone war mentioned. Obama's supporters are really adverse to mentioning that policy on wiki.

Yep, and if you keep up that line of posting, we'll track you down and debate the issue in your lounge room. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

First African American president makes no sense

He's *half* African American. That's like me saying that a glass is full or empty when it's only 50% full. It is neither full nor empty. Obama is either white AND black, or neither. A more correct statement would be that he's the first president with a parent of African descent.MisterZed (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ#Q2, and well as the talk page of the Barack Obama and and its archived discussions on this subject.--JayJasper (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

It has been suggested on Talk:Barack Obama that Obama speaking publicly about this event should be stated on this article. For reasons unexplained, Obama feels great affinity with Martin, stating that if he had a son, he would look like Martin, and that 35 years ago, he would have been Martin. The President has said nothing about the vast majority of the thousands of people who are shot dead in the U.S. every year, so it is notable that he spoke directly to the media on a few occasions about Martin and the connection he feels to the case and to Martin personally, despite having never heard of him before his death and having very little in common with him. 94.197.30.250 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Illogic much lately? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense. I think that Obama's public statements on the Zimmerman-Martin case should be mentioned in this article - do you agree or disagree? 94.197.250.144 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It's way too early for that. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from an historical perspective, otherwise they smell of recentism. We need to see where this thing develops, what kind of coverage it gets, whether or not the Martin killing is taken up by the DoJ and what happens as a result. Then we will be in a better position to put something in this article about the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. All Obama Wikipedia articles should end coverage as of January 20, 2013. After he leaves office. His second term could be covered. No joke. Listen to Scjessey or reject his proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.179 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Within a few weeks we'll likely know if Obama's personal identification with Martin and statements about race, the federal inquiry about possible civil rights violations, and involvement in efforts to diminish stand-your-ground laws, is a major event in the Presidency. My hunch is that it is. I was just objecting to the silly jabs about Obama not having heard of him before the event. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

White House visitor logs

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

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

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

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

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

Why have all the additions from the past three months been reverted?

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

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

It can be fixed by adding a {{reflist}} to the appropriate section. As for the reverts, it is because a banned editor has been obsessed with this article for 4+ years now. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If a banned editor has been erasing content, then that content should be added back to the article. 71.182.236.185 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The banned editor has bee trying to add content deemed unsuitable by others. Tarc (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)