Talk:Barack Obama

Obama response to Foreign Policy Issues in mainstream press for over a month about Ukraine and Crimea with no subsection on President Obama's Page.

During the past four to five weeks the emerging news coverage of President Obama's response to the foreign policy issue of tensions in the Ukraine and Crimea have received daily coverage in the mainstream press yet no subsection on this issue is present on the Wikipedia page for President Obama. Two editors have reverted the attempt to present this as a short one paragraph subsection oriented to the Washington Post quotes in an editorial report given over last week-end, both on the President's page here and at the John Kerry page. The issue has been covered daily by NY Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe for the last month and some short version of the president's position and comments would appear to be notable for inclusion. A short though expanded two-paragraph version of the previous version is presented here for comment, since the one-paragraph version described above was not seen as sufficient and Washington Post coverage alone was remarked upon as being insufficient by editors.

(short new subsection titled 'Ukraine & Crimea' proposed directly after presently existing "bin Laden" subsection);

On 12 March 2014, USA Today in an article titled "Obama set to meet Ukraine PM as Crimea referendum nears" reported that; "Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk will visit the White House on Wednesday as President Obama searches for a way to head off the crisis in Ukraine that is testing U.S.-Russia relationship. Yatsenyuk's meeting with Obama comes just days before a hastily scheduled referendum in the Crimean region of Ukraine to decide whether the region will become part of Russia," (USA Today, 12 March 2014). Previously the Ukrainian government had become locked in a debate concerning whether the alignment of their country would be more oriented towards the European Union or towards Russia, with President Obama in discussion with leaders of the European Union. USA Today reported that; "Obama has called Sunday's scheduled vote in Crimea 'unconstitutional,' but at the same time the White House has sought to focus attention on the fact that the Russians have a vested interest in what happens in the Ukraine." Putin has argued that if Crimea is viewed as an autonomous state with rights of sovereignty then there is constitutionality, to which USA Today reports that; "The president (Obama) has made that argument twice in phone calls (of unconstitutionality) with Russian President Vladimir Putin since Russia's military incursion into Crimea," (USA Today, 12 March 2014). It was reported that Obama's meeting with Ukraine's Yatsenyuk did not allow Russian reporters to the press conference after Yatsenyuk had put in a request for one billion dollars in foreign aid for the Ukraine from the United States (RTVI, 12 March 2014, transcript of newscast of Yekaterina Andreev.)

On 2 March 2014, The Washington Post questioned the realism of Kerry's endorsement of President Obama's foreign policy when applied to issues of Russian interventionism in the Ukraine and Crimea during February and March of 2014 stating that, "Kerry displayed this mindset (of President Obama) on ABC's 'This Week' Sunday when he said, of Russia's invasion of neighboring Ukraine, 'It's a 19th century act in the 21st century.'"(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html) The Washington Post essay by its Editorial Board moderated its position of intervention in both the Ukraine and Syria as still requiring realism contrary to Kerry stating that: "But it's also true that, as long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can't pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan -- these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that's harmful to U.S. national security, too."(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html) The same Washington Post article also put into question the more general foreign policy of President Obama which was characterized as "a world in which 'the tide of war is receding' and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces."(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html)

At present two editors seem to support the second paragraph alone (see John Kerry page), while two seem to oppose the second paragraph alone, therefore the first paragraph is added here as clarification of this Presidential foreign policy issue which has been notable in the mainstream press on a daily basis for several weeks. This topic is presently fully absent from the Barack Obama page. This short subsection was expanded with further cites after the request of another editor for more sources. The current Page for the President already covers several open-ended issues at various stages of development both early and late. This short subsection contains notable information in the mainstream press and is useful for inclusion on the Barack Obama page. FelixRosch (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Waaay too early for this article, which is meant to be a summary of Obama's life from an historical perspective. Try Presidency of Barack Obama first. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a huge hunk of text to deal with just one of the many important international relationships, issues, and flashpoints of the administration: Israel and Palestine, Arab Spring and the many Arab nations, North Korea, Syria, Libya, friendly issues with Canada and Mexico, Russia, China, Japan, etc. As I noted in reverting the proposed addition the way this is worded suffers not only from WP:UNDUE but WP:POV, WP:RS, and WP:OR. The sources are editorials critical of Obama's foreign policy, and happen to touch on the talking points of the moment, and are mostly long quotes from editorials to boot, which isn't exactly the most encyclopedic way to summarize any political issue. Language like "The Washington Post questioned the realism of Kerry's endorsement" is not in the source. How do we know the Post questioned the realism of anything, or "moderated its position" or "put into question" Obama's foreign policy? Only because a Wikipedia editor read the editorials and feels that's what publishers were doing, which is an editor's opinion and not a sourced comment. Further, it wasn't the Post, it was a single writer in a single article published by the Post. The Ukraine situation may well merit a mention here or in the Presidency article, and certainly in sub articles, not only for Ukraine itself but the likely deterioration in US-Russia relations. But it would have to be stated as such in terms of the long term implications, not a critique of the wisdom of Obama's judgement. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

An Obama-related AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama-ism, for those here that may not have seen it, given the odd hyphenation. I stumbled across it by sheer chance today. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Obama's race

See Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ #2
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why do you call Barrack Obama II the first "African American" or "Black" President? A person born in America is American. An "African American" describes a person born in Africa who becomes an American citizen. His mother was a "White" American of (partly)European descent. Commonly referred to as "White" or "Caucasian." Obama is of mixed race ancestry. According to the American Heritage College dictionary, a person born of one Black and one White parent is a Mulatto, a rarely used term but more accurate. Respecting Obama's diverse racial heritage is correct and more inclusive. Christosveritaseternum (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Chistosveritaseternum 3/16/14 See FAQ #2 at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

FY 2015 budget request

Hi! On March 4, 2014, Obama submitted his fiscal year 2015 budget request to Congress. I've started an article about it - President Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal. I was hoping other editors would be interested in improving the page and wanted to invite you to do so. I was also hoping to get other editors' input on how to insert a link or two to the article on this page, possibly in the section about economic policy? It could be something simple like:

President Barack Obama submitted his fiscal year 2015 budget request for $3.9 trillion to Congress on March 4, 2014.

Or longer with more information about what is in the proposal (there is a ton of relevant material that could be used), like:

President Barack Obama submitted his fiscal year 2015 budget request for $3.9 trillion to Congress on March 4, 2014. The president's budget proposal was described as a "populist wish list." Some of the proposed programs include more spending on pre-school education, tax credits for childless low-income workers, and most than $1 trillion in new and higher taxes. The President's proposal was also considered a "playbook" for Democrats' "election-year themes of creating jobs and narrowing the income gap between rich and poor."

As I said, there is a lot of material - defense spending, taxes, education, etc - that could be included. Does anyone have any comments on what they think this should say or where in the article it should appear? Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Image description

Before someone ends up blocked for WP:3RR... Shouldn't the alt text at least identify Obama by name? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I went to WP:ALT to see exactly what the purpose of it is, but it doesn't seem to be clear on whether it should be written for an audience text-readers or for the blind, or both. So I'm not really sure atm which way this should go. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Read it and it is unclear, and different from wheat was explained earlier. Dave Dial (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:ALT#Importance_of_context and the Blair/Bush example? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ALT is not clear, so can we try a little common sense here? Seems right that alt text should physically describe the individual to benefit vision-impaired people, but there's no reason to leave off the person's name, nor does it have to be dumbed down. Why not say something like "Barack Obama, a middle-aged African American male, smiling and standing with his hands folded in front of a desk and two flags. He is a wearing a navy blue suit and a light blue tie with white dots." Tvoz/talk 01:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

با عرض سلام خدمت رياست جمهوري آمريکا جناب اقاي اوباما و ضمن تشکر توجهات شما و البته برداشت برعکس سياستمداران آمريکا در قبال مطلبي که عنوان کردم البته برام مهم توجه شما بود که ما ادامه مباحثه رو پيش ببريم آقاي اوباما بدون مقدمه وارد اصل مطلب ميشم مطمئنا از حوادث و اقدامات و جريانات حاکم بر جهان باخبريد واقعا با ديدن اخبار از اين اوضاع درهم برهم تنها آرزوي که دارم اول از همه خصومت بين شما و ايران از بين بره تا اين در هم بر همي ها اندکي ظاروم بگيره چون همه اينا طبق برداشت من با دلايل محکمه پسند ريشه در خصومت بين شما و ايران داره سياست ايران در قبال اتحاد بين کشورها و تنها گذاشتن و تحت فشار قرار دادن شما و متقابلا فشارهاي تحريم از سوي شما و تهديد حملات جنگ باعث شده که اوضاع درهم و بر همي ايجاد شه که من با اين وضعيت پيش بيني يک جنگ جهاني رو ميکنم و براي همين هست که در تلاش هستم که جلوي اين جنگ رو بگيرم به هر طريقي که شده آقاي اوباما چون تنها کسانيکه در جنگ اسيب ميبينند مردم هستن و تنها کسانيکه تحت فشارهستند از اين اوضاع در هم و برهم بازم مردم هستن نه مسئولين در مورد مسله تهديدي که به کره شمالي کردين ازتون خواستارم که حرفتونو پس بگيريد حالا که شروع مباحثه براي صلح نامه ايران و آمريکا هست من در برخوردم مطمئن باشيد اگه شناختي که نسبت به من داريد برخورد عادلانه خواهم کرد من در روابط خصمانه و دشمني بين شما و ايران هر دو رو مقصر مي دونم براي مين هست که با اين اوضاع درهم و بر هم حاکم بر جهان کسي رو دشمن نميبينم جز لج و لج بازي هاي حاکم بر مسئولين دولت ها اما ريشه همه اونا در کدورت بين شما و ايران هست.ببينيد من در پيج اقاي روحاني خيلي مسائل رو عنوان کردم در پيج شما يکسري مسائل ديگه رو عنوان خواهم کرد اقاي اوباما با تحريم کردن و تهديد جنگ جز اينکه وضع از اين بدتر شه نتيجه اي به همراه نداره جز اينکه شمار لج و لج بازي ها بيشتر ميشه و مقدمه براي جنگ جهاني فراهم ميشه حالا که پيشرفت هسته اي همش در سلاح هسته اي بوده باعث ميشه اسيب جبران ناپذير تري بر کره خاکي ايجلاد شه که اثراتش رو هم حيات وحش ميبينه هم مردم بيچاره .اگه يادتون باشه من در مقدمه صحبتام صحبت از رقابت سالم کردم رقابت سالم يعني چي؟يعني اينکه من اگه توانايي دارم و امکاناتي اونو در جهت درست به کار ببرم من مثال ميزنم چاقو هم کاربرد درست داره هم نادرست اگه چاقو وسيله اي براي کشتن آدما باشه ميشه کابرد نادرست اما اگه وسيله اي براي خرد کردن مواد غذايي باشه ميشه درست همين طور اگه يه چاقو رو به دست يک کودک بديم چون نمي دونه طرز کاربردشو ممکنه به خودش اسييب بزنه اما آيا سياستمداران و مسئولين دولت ها کودک اند والله با اين لج و لج بازي ها از کودک هم بدترند چون هنوز طرز استفاده درست از انرزي هسته اي رو نمي دونن و فکر ميکنند انرژي هسته تنها وسيله اي هست براي جنگ براي تهديد بدون اينکه فکر کنند دغدغه هاي ملتشون چيه و بدون اينکه فکر کنند ممکنه چه اثراتي داشته باشه من معتقدم اگه يه نظارت درست صورت بگيره روي يک رقابت سالم در مسئله هسته و به کارگيري اون در جهت رفاه بشر بهترين شيوهن هست اما کي هست ه بخواد نظارت کنه بايد يه قدرتي باشه که در درجه اول عادل باشه و يک نظارت عادلانه داشته باشه و ناظر قوي باشه من تنها قدرتي رو که مي تونم لايق اون بدونم سازمان حقوق بشره و مسلما اين صحبت رو در مباحثه ام درج خواهم کرد الان هم که ديگه مباحثه کم کم وارد بازگرداني به زبان انگليسي شده يا اگه ببينم پيجشون بازگرداني داره ديگه خودم بر نميگردونم اما خب براي محکم کاري برميگردونم به زبان انگليسي.خلاصه بگذريم الان صحبت من از اين هستش که از شما بخوام که در مقابل اين حرکت در جهت صلح جهاني شما هم يک اقدامي بکنيد مطمئن باشيد اگه قرار باشه دوباره چنين برخوردهايي نسبت به شما انجام بشه من ممانعت خواهم کرد فقط دلم ميخواد صادقانه وارد اين حرکت در جهت صلح جهاني بشيد چون تنها مورد که برام خيلي مهمه اينکه رکب تو کار نه شما و نه هيچ يک از مسئولين دولت ها نباشه.بعد مسئله آثار هخامنشي و بازگرداني پول ايران ضمن تشکر از اين حسن نيت از جانب شما اما مسئله مهم اينکه من براي اينکه بخوام قدمم رو در جهت صلح جهاني محکم تر کنم و جلوي سوسه اومدن ها گرفته باشه ازتون ميخوام حدلاقل تا حدي هم که شده سود اين پول به ايران بازگردانده بشه ممکنه بگيد نغمه داره به نفع کشورش حرف ميزنه نه.اگه دقت کنيد من گروه مخالفيني در خود ايران دارم که با من سير اين اقدامم مخالف اند و به دلايل مختلف سوسه ميان و فکر ميکنند نغمه دلايل اين سوسه اومدن ها رو نمي دونه من براي بستن دهن اين سوسه از جانب هر دو چون تو آمريکا هم هستن مسلما نيازمند اين حرکت از جانب شما هستم در مقابل حرکت ايران يعني سياست عادلانه در زمينه اتحاد.بين کشورا.و در جهت رسيدن به صلح جهاني.Naghmehetaati (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)