Talk:Public image of Barack Obama/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Approval Ratings

I'll reiterate my question from the section above, why aren't Barack Obama's approval ratings here even when I'm sure they were in Bush's public image article back when he was president.

"Like most surveys that predict public opinion, the approval rating is subjective. Many unscientific approval rating systems exist that skew popular opinion. However, the approval rating is generally accepted as a statistically valid indicator of the comparative changes in the popular US mood regarding a President."-United States presidential approval rating

Obama's Approval Ratings

Someone has been kind enough to continually be creating and updating this graph of Obama's approval ratings and I think it should be presented here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am currently teaching Year 9 students about graphs. If one of them presented me with that graph in their end of topic test, they would probably fail. What on earth is it trying to tell me? What do the colours mean? What does the vertical scale mean? How can there be three different values on one date? Why is the line so thick and wiggly? Adding that graph would be pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the graph is messy, but the legend is found in the description.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A graph should make complicated figures easy to interpret. That one doesn't. Too many unanswered questions. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Obama's Approval Ratings. Blue = Approval. Red = Disapproval. Green = Undecided

Still have questions?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there's been a bit of bad luck with the numbers contributing to that graph. My first impression was that it showed a single line that doubled back on itself and changed colour twice. This is partly because the disapprove and unsure figures were almost the same at the start, and the approve and disapprove figures almost the same at the end. That means the lines look like they join up, especially given the size of the graph shown here. Maybe some smoothing would work to make he separations clear. The legend MUST also be close to the lines in the graph. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The X-axis is entirely too compact for the number of data points it's trying to show. It's so squished, I can't even tell how many periods per month are plotted. It also looks like the type of graph used for daily stock market fluctuations (I don't recall the name), where each period is represented by a vertical high-low range line, but the lines are too thick and melt together. But re-plotted for better legibility, and with an obvious legend, it has potential to be a useful representation. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the graph has problems, more than one in my opinion, and have asked the creator of the file to address the issues. The issues, as I see them, are that the graph should be uniform with the other Presidential graphs, both visually and by using only Gallup as a reference. I do not know if the editor has made any of the requested changes, and it's hard to complain when someone else is doing the work. But, if someone else wants to fix the graph to make it uniform, I have no problem adding it here or on the United States presidential approval rating article. Dave Dial (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's describe the comments above as suggestions, rather than complaints. ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Well, maybe that part came out wrong. I was strictly speaking for myself when I was addressing the creator of the file. heh-heh Dave Dial (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The type of graph presented here is identical to the one in George Bush's article, so I'm renewing my suggestion to include it here(as now we have the added bonus of having consistency between articles, yay). Apart from dislike of squiggly lines does anybody here have any real objection to the graph(which I think looks fine)?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The squiggles MUST go. And without a better legend, actually showing the line colors, within the surrounds of the graph, I still have my doubts. Signed: Pedantic High School Math Teacher. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all they are not identical. The Bush graph is based on only the Gallup poll while the Obama graph is taking data from every poll at Pollingreport.com ---Also, the Bush poll isn't all bunched up with daily/multiple polls crammed into each data line. Now, apart from you thinking it looks fine, are you going to try to really do something to improve the graphic or just search around for other stuff to justify a crappy graph(apologies to the author). Not that mine(1,2,3) are much better, but I tried. Dave Dial (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Assassinations

Attempted to get this on the actual Barack Obama page, at first it was denied due to lack of proof, when I found an NY times article, I was able to prove it, but it was denied for lack of needing it up there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Assassinations 76.90.27.224 (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it's even less on-topic and needed down here. PhGustaf (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the first attempt was with a different IP address, since there is no record of an "attempt" in your contributions. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Depictions

I'm somewhat embarrassed to bring this up, but President Barack Obama has been portrayed in porn films by noted porn stars Guy DiSilva and Stephen Clancy Hill. Would mentioning that be appropriate in this Wikipedia article? I kind of doubt it, but would be interested in how others would react. Frankly, part of the reason I ask is that the porn film Who's Nailin' Paylin is currently listed in Template:Sarah Palin. If I or someone else were to write a Wikipedia article about pornographic depictions of Obama, what policies would be important for deciding whether to list such an article in Template:Barack Obama, or to wlnk it here in this article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is now moot at the Palin template (the porn wlink has been appropriately removed).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As always with Wikipedia, it is a question of notability. If these depictions have received significant coverage in a preponderance of respectable and reliable sources, inclusion is desirable (assuming that it passes WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP); however, I see that as highly unlikely. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Outdated Info

This article does not cover any of the info behind President Obama's second year in office. Most of the article currently focuses on the public perception of him in his presidential election and early presidency. I've put an appropriate template to make note of this, and I suggest that more current information be added to this article.--Novus Orator 09:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that biographical articles are written from an historical perspective, so they will always seem somewhat dated when compared to up-to-the-minute perceptions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but I think we can at least expect information from the past year of his presidency. Currently, the article mainly focuses on his campaign public perception.--Novus Orator 05:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The second sentence of the opening paragraph was recently changed by this edit. I think the edit summary makes a valid point. However, the sentence as it stands after the edit makes it sound as if there are many legitimate questions that just arose out of the blue, or based on some unspecified factual evidence. I seriously doubt the same questions would have arisen, or been so diligently pursued, if his father had been a white Christian settler from Kenya rather than a black Muslim native of that country; but of course that's pure opinion. The sentence needs to be modified in some way, but in a way that reflects reliable sources and summarizes article text. Any suggestions? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree and reverted that edit. However the lede is poorly written and needs to be expanded. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 07:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I realized that the first Public image we had was back in 2004, so I wrote about that. I refrained from using the word

"Magic" but his first speech was indeed. POV? I am disappointed in our Prez. No one could live up to those expectations but he hasn't lived up to his own. That needs to be discussed too. Did some updates, it really was terribly out of date. BBL — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What a difference a day makes... Article for the lead/lede was from the Washington Post which was ABOUT the speech so I cannot fathom why anyone would say the speech was not mentioned. There were mumblings on the hill about Obama but the American public in general had no idea who he was. U.S. News & World Report called him obscure! I think the new lead/lede captures this nicely. Please do not delete without further discussion here. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate new opening paragraph

I have removed this inappropriate new opening paragraph added and readded in WP:BRD edits by DocOfSoc in their first series of edits to this article:

In August of 2004, few had ever heard of "Barack Obama," or as he referred to himself, "the skinny kid with the funny name". He stepped up to the podium of the Democratic Party's National Convention, a virtual unknown. Many in the politically savvy assembly wondered who was this guy and why was he giving the keynote speech. In the next 17 minutes, he captured the crowd and the attention of millions of television viewers; Barack Obama crafted a first impression that "still stands at the foundation of his presidential campaign." Obama possessed the vision, he said, of "not a black America and a white America and a Latino America and an Asian America -- there is a United States of America." By the time he reached his culmination: "Out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come," the crowd stood, mesmerized, barely a dry eye in the huge arena. This was the first public image of the future presidential nominee.

Per MOS:LEAD: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

The inappropriate new opening paragraph is not an introduction to and is not a summary of this Wikipedia article—it is instead about Obama's 2004 DNC keynote speech, which was never heretofore mentioned in this Wikipedia article—and remains unmentioned in the body of this Wikipedia article.

The inappropriate new opening paragraph has extensive quotes from an article about Obama's 2004 DNC keynote speech that not unexpectedly gives (undue) emphasis to its subject: Obama's 2004 DNC keynote speech. The topic of this article is the "Public image of Barack Obama"—not "Barack Obama's 2004 DNC keynote speech."

The inappropriate new opening paragraph's claim that Obama's 2004 DNC keynote was "the first public image of the future presidential nominee" is unsourced and false.

Contentious, disputed, inappropriate material stays out of WP:BLP articles. Please do not readd this contentious, disputed, inappropriate opening paragraph without consensus.
Newross (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have forgotten this:

Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 3,628,893 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in Good Faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming

My mentor made excellent suggestions regarding "collaboration" After reading your talk page, I have doubts that is within your vocabulary. A long winded and repetitious diatribe is not appropriate and un-Wiki like. You actually said "Inappropriate" SEVEN times. Not Helpful or constructive. Wiki is about collaboration. Care to try again? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

changes have introduced new problems

While recent changes to the opening paragraph have resolved some problems, they have introduced others. The claim that opposition to Obama on a wide range of issues is due solely to his race is both unsourced but requires telepathy to confirm. Additionally this claim ignores the existence of contradicting evidence to explain the actions of Obama's critics by the use of a politically charged blanket statement. There is also an unsourced claim that "No previous president has been subjected to such scrutiny." Please remember that the noble effort of removing WP:WEASEL wording is not an invitation to add WP:PEACOCK terms. --Allen3 ^talk 12:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if the statement ""No previous president..." was cited, unless it is from a reliable source that connects his race to these "questions", it is original synthesis to bring it up here. Ultimately this statement can only ever be an opinion, and only merits mentioning if it is the opinion of some notable authority. Unless someone's conducted a reliable survey that asks the people asking the questions?

And if a notable authority could be quoted, I would argue that it still doesn't belong in the lead. Leads are far better sticking to indisputable solid facts, and discussing the opinions later. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Also just wanted to note that the lead is notably one-sided and shoddy, particularly when compared to the rest of the article. Why doesn't it even mention any positive aspects of his public image? Why does it lead and focus on the "birthers" side-show, which isn't an issue for most of the public? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the Lede needs to be re-worked to reflect the article, and the "cite" tags need to be removed. The Lede should reflect the article and the cites be included within the body. Perhaps an editor would like to re-work the lede based on the body of the article, or take a template from a previous lede and re-work it with more from the body. Dave Dial (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Upon reading your statement I was reminded of a study that showed precisely that: people are far more likely to accept ludicrous statements about Obama like his being a socialist or a Muslim when they first consider race. The conjecture that Obama's race is the reason he has to put up with nonsense is substantiated, though any inclusion needs to be carefully worded.--Louiedog (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Scrutiny

You cannot prove something that has never happened. The scrutiny Kennedy was put under for his Catholicism pales in comparison to the intense scrutiny President Obama has been under since he announced his candidacy. This is one of the rare instances of Common Knowledge — DocOfSoc • Talk • 18:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Due to the fact he is the first African-American President, questions of racial authenticity, citizenship, origin and religious affiliation arose during his campaign, and persist into the third year of his tenure.[dubious – discuss]" What is dubious about the microscope the president has been placed under? See above. Is there any other reason for this scrutiny besides race? I think not. If you can think of anything else, please enlighten me. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 19:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's no-one else's responsibility to produce "other reasons", it is your responsibility to produce a reliable source to back up the one that you are adding. Please do not remove the tags while this is being discussed. If you cannot produce a cite to backup your addition it will be removed, per Wikipedia policy. Challenging others to refute the claims is the exact reverse of how things are done. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear; the problem of what you are adding has nothing to do whether Obama has been under scrutiny or not, as discussion above makes clear. It is your unsourced assertion that it is "Due to the fact he is the first African-American President". This is followed by the uncited claim that "No previous president has been subjected to such scrutiny". Whether this, in your opinion, is common knowledge or not makes no difference, any more than whether it is true or not. They are both claims that are liable to be challenged and the reader has no way of verifying them. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you perform a web search for "Obama free pass press" you will find results such as these from NewsWeek, CBS, and Canada Free Press indicating Obama is experiencing a lack of scrutiny instead of the high level suggested by the statement. --Allen3 ^talk 21:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Birthers say that race has nothing to due with the issue, so I think we should go with what they claim. Doubting their word that that race is not an issue could be akin to doubting President Obama's word that he is a Christian. However, I would suggest removing the entire sentence. As mentioned above, it's only a sideshow, and not notable enough to be in the introduction anyway. --ChromeWire (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

@DocOfSoc Every President comes under scrutiny for something. There are always those out there, who, at the slightest piece of evidence that Government is "plotting against them", will devise some crazy conspiracy theory. The Birth Certificate issue seems to have arisen entirely from the interview with Obama's grandmother, where due to a misunderstanding, she answered that he had in fact, been born in Kenya. Although she immediately corrected the mix-up, the conspiracy theorists, as always, were quick to twist the story into something it wasn't. So I'll believe the Birthers when they say race had nothing to do with it. Every President will be declared to be part of some conspiracy, the Birth Certificate issue just happened to be Obama's.--ChromeWire (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Chrome. Yes every President has been scrutinized for something. Kennedy and the Catholic issue was the worst in my lifetime. But NO president has been unrelentingly put under a microscope for the entirety of his tenure as President Obama has. To limit it to the Birthers and what they claim is just plain ludicrous, sorry, and why on earth would you believe them? I never heard the grandmother story actually. The crap I hear my many republican friends spouting is disgraceful. Most do not respect this president because of his race and do not hesitate to use the N word. Have you not noticed is is usually just Obama, not President Obama? And Wiki is supposed to be a collaboration, not a challenge I often go look for sources for other's statements. To say this is not about race is akin to living in Neverland! <Shaking head> — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think race is a cause in part; it is an often hidden motivator IMO. However, he took over for Bush who was attacked by liberals for most of his presidency. Now you have an angry right just waiting for revenge. I think the right-wing media has gone to enormous lengths to undermine and drag Obama through the mud. Maybe there is denial too? Most of my conservative friends have a lot of hate for Obama, based on information (whether true or not) that is spread by the right wing. Regarding what Allen3 stated above, you can see instances where Obama got a "free press pass" with certain issues, particularly in the beginning of his presidency and with liberal to "neutral" media outlets. I think this further infuriates the right-wing media.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Norty. I agree. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 13:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead reworked

I've had a go at re-working the lead so it is a better reflection of what is in the article. It's not 100%, but still think it's a great improvement on what was there. Happy to have others contribute and add to it.

I removed in the course of this the claims regarding the motivations of a some people in criticising Obama. Firstly because it wasn't cited, secondly because it was undue weight, and thirdly because I didn't think it has much to do with this article. There are other articles in Wikipedia that cover the conspiracy theories regarding Obama's birth and nationality. This one is about his general public image.

I've omitted any mention of Religion in the lead for similar reasons. Would be interested in other's take on this, but I don't see his religion playing a significant role in his public image. Or at least not any more than any other US politician. To my mind the Religion section is just an excuse to go over more conspiracy theories about how he may "secretly" be Muslim, which appears to have little to do with his public image, and again perhaps undue weight to fringe theories? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WELL DONE! BUT... With a large % of Americans still believing he is Muslim, I think Religion is important component. BUT... you do good work :-) It just didn't go far enough. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 12:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see what you mean DocOfSoc, but I think I agree with Escape_Orbit. Religion is not a significant part of Obama's public image. It's only nut cases who, for reasons that have nothing to do with his real public image, still want to claim he is a Muslim. They have no concrete evidence. There is nothing that will change the minds of such people. So, I agree, leave it out of the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Much better than what was there before. Seems like everyone agrees too. --ChromeWire (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes! I agree! Good Job! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

2004 Speech

To whomever rewrote the section on his Democratic Convention speech in 2004, you have some serious copyright issues that need to be corrected immediately. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 13:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

See: [1] — DocOfSoc • Talk • 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You can see matches with the source here but the article was quoted in the citation and within text, also citing the author. The second Saslow quote is a bit long and maybe we are over-quoting him in that paragraph anyway.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that all is well, thank you. Happy Day! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is the "Around the world" section 100% praise and 0% criticism?

I just added a citing of two articles that respectively cite criticism from Canada and the U.K. to the section. Surely there are plenty of other reliably sourced criticisms that should be included in this article. I cite Wikipedia: Neutral point of view as justification for this. Darlene Fades to Black (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you went out of your way to find criticism, which is obvious POV editing. I've reverted. Wait for the thoughts of others here. It may surprise you to know that Obama does happen to be very, very popular outside the USA. Some criticism may be due, but cherry picking as you have done is not. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it certainly doesn't have to be the particular content that I added. There are many other reliably sourced criticisms that would serve just as well to balance out the section. It's a very long section, and right now it's 100% praise, and 0% criticism, which makes it extremely POV. Darlene Fades to Black (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The section is dated, with most of it referring to Obama's international image from just prior to the election. Work is needed to bring the article up to date. That being said, people abroad have an overwhelmingly positive feeling toward Barack Obama and this is supported by a preponderance of reliable sources. The amount of positive or negative information in an article is not decided by percentages, but rather by a fair reflection of what sources say. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Darlene Fades to Black and Scjessey in that NPOV should be followed. That said, Darlene Fades to Black's edits like this one have been tendentious. Just because Romney made a statement about Obama does not make it a part of his public image. Also putting "Obama fired the CEO of General Motors" into that section is a statement by this wikipedia article that this is evidence of his "crony capitalism", when no independent source states this. This is a classic case of synthesizing a viewpoint by placing the messages of unrelated sources together, the exact thing wikipedia is on strict guard against.--Louiedog (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious from the edit to the article that Darlene Fades to Black is a familiar face. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Teleprompter 2012-05-03

More than two years ago, I was involved with an RfC about mentioning Obama's image vis-a-vis the TelePrompTer; the consensus at that time was 'NO' (see Talk:Public image of Barack Obama/Archive 3#RFC-Teleprompter). It seems wrong to hide a matter which is nearly a meme, as Obama himself joked about the matter at the 2012 White House Correspondents' Association dinner. Just a few days before, US News reported this about Congressman Howard Berman (Obama's fellow Democrat): "He started off his speech with a dig at President Obama. "No Teleprompter for me. Tell the president that," he said" (April 26, 2012 article by Lauren Fox). Please, can we again discuss the matter? See: •Talk:Public image of Barack Obama/Archive 3#TelePrompter•Talk:Public image of Barack Obama/Archive 3#TelePrompter2010•Talk:Public image of Barack Obama/Archive 3#Teleprompter2010-02-Feb•Talk:Public image of Barack Obama/Archive 3#Further discussion
I personally had written an admittedly longish section; editors complained that it was too long so I rewrote it to THREE SENTENCES (see here):
Both as a candidate and as President, Obama has been praised as an orator even while his uncommonly frequent use of TelePrompters has been noted both by humorists and editorialists; an editorial in The Washington Post claimed that Obama "has become known as the teleprompter president" while a Politico article on "Obama's safety net: the TelePrompter" was dismissed as "a contrivance, and grist for the right wing mill" in a U.S. News & World Report editorial. Obama's use of speech prompting technology at news conferences has been noted by veteran commentators such as CNN's American Morning anchor John Roberts and Associated Press Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier. Other journalists have defended Obama's consistent use of speech prompting technology, noting that Obama routinely participates in writing his own speeches, prefers a 'disciplined delivery of carefully crafted text', and is to be commended for 'sticking to his rhetorical plan'.
The three sentences still seem encyclopedic to me, and actually make Obama sound pretty good (unsurprising since I have no interest in mocking the President of the United States and every interest in including something useful in this article). Shall we now include this aspect of President Obama's image? --→gab 24dot grab← 17:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, lets look at this again... Given that Barack Obama's use of the teleprompter is not out of line with other people's use of the teleprompter, he has been demonstrated to be able to give speeches without it AND that most of the cites on this are from October 2011 when the meme was popular, I still don't see why it bears mentioning. Given the hurdles it has passed, I think it would be best to compare it to other politicians such as Mitt Romney who also makes consistent use of a teleprompter because "It makes sense". Perhaps we should mention the fact that he frequently wears suits while giving speeches, or frequently uses the oval office for various presidential activities. The ultimate problem with the teleprompter 'issue' is that there isn't one. The teleprompter is in use by almost everyone who gives a public speech that you've ever seen. That's one of the main reasons that when Rush Limbaugh made up this issue it didn't gain any traction with anyone important. They ALL use the ALL the time. What would be notable is if he DIDN'T use a teleprompter. Santorum didn't use a teleprompter, and a description of one of his speeches was "It was a 20-minute ramble of lame jokes, patriotic platitudes and half-developed campaign themes" In short, Reagan used a teleprompter for EVERY major speech he did. George H W did not, preferring index cards(this MIGHT merit some attention if it were modern but back then teleprompters weren't as good as they are now so more people didn't use them). Clinton did, Bush did, Obama did. How is this still an issue? 108.66.45.123 (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if editors are seeing this as Limbaugh sycophancy or a petty criticism of Obama. Frankly, there is no real reason to pretend that teleprompters are embarrassing or bad for Obama's image, and it plainly is an oft-reported feature. Teleprompter use is an extremely sourceable aspect of Obama's public image (transcending news to the point of meme), whereas for other candidates no such degree of reporting has occurred for their speech techniques. Instead of asking "how is this still an issue" (which would be WP:Original research, the article should simply reflect that it is still a topic within Obama's public image. Are there any particular objections to the three sentences suggested in this thread's first comment? --→gab 24dot grab← 14:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in the last 2+ years, except that the oppo meme has been furthered into obscurity. If you want more reasons, refer to the other attempts to add this in the Talk page archives. Dave Dial (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

IP editor deleting sourced content with rude Edit summaries

I'll confess to having got into a small edit skirmish with an IP editor over his removal of a well sourced piece of text from the article, but now I surrender. I have tried to remain polite and suggested discussion, but the IP editor repeated his removal several times with increasingly rude Edit summaries, and no discussion. See [2], but also the article history before that. The IP editor may well have a point. I cannot be sure. But it's hard to get a clear idea of his motivation. Can some fresh minds and eyes please have a look? HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that the removal of text has now been reverted by User:DD2K, and the IP editor has been warned for his behaviour by User:Stephan Schulz and User:Elizium23. Thank you for your support. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And then reverted back by an anon ip from the same general location as the original ip, giving the same reasoning. Socking while blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see. That new IP address is noted as being registered to Oregon State University. Fair chance our IP Editor has popped into his local university library to keep pushing this point. Where do we go from here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Relax kid - I was just trolling. Still got the dog eating thing in! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.18.190 (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Birth place?

The "origins and identity" section should include a reference to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article so that readers interested in that topic can find it. It is already included in the Public image navbox, so this article is a natural place to summarize the contents of that article. Diego (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be completely excluded because it's politically driven bullshit. There never really was nay doubt, but Obama's opponents and some assorted bigots wanted to make people believe there was. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Summarizing Barack Obama on Twitter?

If Barack Obama article cannot have a summary of Twitter there, can Obama's Twittering be mentioned here then? --George Ho (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at this article while thinking about my !vote in the AfD. It doesn't seem to fit here either, because this article is mostly about how Obama is perceived. I think the Twitter article will likely be kept, making this rather moot. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Golf

There has been significant coverage of the current POTUS and his golfing, yet there is no mention in this article, a news search brings up over 98K of reliable sources that talk about the current POTUS and golf. Perhaps this missing content should be rectified?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Well, the problem with that is that by the time it is written and put onto the page it will be deleted because of the heavy bias of those who wrote the article/administer Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.52.40 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

T4 and Obamacare

There following edits on this page were just reverted, with another contributor calling them 'disruptive':

According to some critics of Barack Obama health-care 'reform,' the president's policy was a carbon copy of Hitler's Action T4, a scheme for eliminating those the government considers to be "useless eaters," with "lives not worthy to be lived."

According to Obamacare critics, similar features Obama succeeded in ramming through included the "death panel," called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Other features similar to T4 according to Obamacare critics were killed in the Senate. Specifically, the Senate killed Section 1233 from the House bill, a measure that outlined an extensive program of "death counseling" to be paid for by Medicare and Medicaid.

My intent is not to be disruptive. I am working toward adding factual content based on reliable sources. Whether one agrees or not, there are some who compare Obamacare to Hitler's T4 policy. Furthermore, this is a facet of his cultural and political image. For instance, I suspect many editors have seen those Obama/Hitler posters, which became quite famous during the health care debate. If you are unfamiliar with this topic, I urge fellow editors to go online, and see there are many conversations in that regard. I understand that it's not a Wikipedia article's place to validate or support that belief; but I do want to report on the fact that that discourse is out there.

To give all my fellow contributors a heads up, I will be trying to restore my work. In the meantime, however, I will try to find a better source than the discussion board/blog I was citing earlier.

If anyone has any further suggestions, I will appreciate hearing them. Poet of Freedom (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The comparison is clearly a ridiculous one. Ridiculous claims about Obama are not part of his public image. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous, says who? That's your opinion. We need to present all notable sides in order to acheive NPOV on this topic. Poet of Freedom (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read up on reliable sources. Here's a hint - a random anonymous user diary on redstate isn't even remotely close to "reliable". That you were willing to use such a craptastic source and called it reliable shows the POV you are trying to push here. Ain't gonna happen. NPOV means we keep OUT the fringe ideas such as this one. Ravensfire (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ravensfire, please assume good faith. I added that citation, as it was an example of the fact that that discourse is out there. I will, however, try to find a better source affirming the fact that many people compare Obamacare to T4. Poet of Freedom (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to use this as a source ... But here's a good video clip that will give you a good introduction to the topic. [3] Poet of Freedom (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

So what? Some fringe dwellers have nutty views. We don't waste space on such garbage here. As I indicated above, this is gives me a clearer image of Obama haters, but not of Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Poet of Freedom says we "need to present all notable sides in order to acheive [sic] NPOV on this topic," but has failed to show how it is notable. Right wing blogs and Larouche PAC are not reliable sources for anything other than batshit insane nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Batshit insane nonsense". Hmmmm. I like that one. May I borrow it for future use in appropriate situations? HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course. It is a generic term that lends itself to all kinds of uses, particularly in the political arena. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, reductio ad Hitlerum might be a better description. --Allen3 ^talk 23:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume good faith on Poet's part; but Wikipedia's strong commitment to a neutral point of view does not in any way obligate us to give credence or undue publicity to every wackjob crackpot theory you can find on the net; see WP:FRINGE. No reliably sane conservative, leftist or libertarian sources can be found to back up the kind of nutbar content you are adding to this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please let's stay civil. I don't think it's anyone's place here to call opinions with which one disagrees "nutbar" or "craptastic." A lot of people have strong objections to Obamacare. That is a fact; and we need to compose well-written, straightfoward content regarding that discourse. Poet of Freedom (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Cut the crap. Suggesting that anyone is behaving like Hitler is anything but civil. It's bullshit. 00:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

'Personal appearance'

' President Obama regularly appears on US and international 'best-dressed' lists. NBC New York named Obama one of the ten best-dressed US Presidents. He was listed as one of the fifty best-dressed people over 50 years old by the Guardian in March 2013. '

THIS passes for Neutral point of view??? Though it's encouraging to see that The Guardian's articles are citable here... Could be fun.Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

What's non-neutral about it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It reads like a fanzine. Where are the opposing views? I expected to see at least some jokes about his ears, which even he makes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq8y3_Dy0Tw Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

He was born with those ears. He wasn't born wearing a suit. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bit pedantic. I'm asking why there are no non-flattering views included. Btw, none of those articles' accolades were voted for by the public, the first claim: 'President Obama regularly appears on US and international 'best-dressed' lists.' is unsubstantiated (the subsequent citation claims no such thing) and if they are to remain, I propose mentioning his positions at 4 & 5 in two of the three lists.Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Yes, please help get the sourcing right, and the text accurately reflecting what the sources say. That's what we're here for. As for why "there are no non-flattering views included", if you can find a well-sourced, non-flattering comment about his personal appearance or the like, that doesn't come from someone who would never have voted for him in this life or the next and is just scoring political points, then please suggest it here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (sorry, I just presumed this article was going to be like the main biography, with any criticism immediately purged).

' President Obama said today at the White House Conference on Bullying Prevention that even a future president doesn't escape the taunts of bullies.

"I have to say that with big ears and the name that I have, I wasn't immune. I didn't emerge unscathed," the president said. ' (CBS News).

What wording related to this would you propose adding to the article? What you have quoted is the President's own words about himself. That's not (necessarily) part of his public image today. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We have a statement from the horse's mouth, with regard to how the public have treated him. The article's title is not: 'Public image of President Obama'

Here's my first attempt at a wording:

At a 2011 White House Conference on Bullying Prevention, Obama claimed he was neither "immune" nor "unscathed" from childhood teasing on account of his "big ears". Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

OK except for the verb (I'd use "stated" instead). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe it did sound too skeptical.Beingsshepherd (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

'Popular culture'

I think this needs further explanation:

' The image, which had been described as "shocking" and racist, led to much surprise as the identity of its creator, 20-year-old Palestinian American university student Firas Alkhateeb, was revealed. '

Was it inconceivable that a young Palestinian American could potentially be a racist/artist (or merely an opponent of Zionism)?Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

'Political Savvy'

I'd like to include the following quotation from Charlie Brooker in the evidently citable Guardian:

' It's like Barack Obama using flying robots to bomb brown folk overseas – critics chuckle and say: "Man, I didn't expect the first black president to do THAT!" '

The context is Brooker claiming (that like former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) the president's acting against type. I think this is a worthy addition, as the mention of 'critics' gives readers some idea of a consensus among the opposition.

Any objections?Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Yes. There is no evidence that the choice of targets for drone attacks is based in any way on skin colour. The Brooker quote might belong in his article, as an example of his writing, but not here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

With the greatest respect: regardless of its veracity, it is a relevant account of what people are saying from a reliable source.Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Not "people". Just one person, who happens to make money by being a just a little bit outrageous. And being sourced doesn't mean we post it. It works the other way. For something to be posted, it must be sourced, but we don't post everything that's sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realized this is an Amish website. But, we do post from Guardian articles, where Brooker is a regular commentator. He's...reporting, what people are saying; or are you insisting that a plurality of persons help type the column?Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Booker is not a reliable source for "what people are saying". And "Amish"? WTF? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

. 'Charlie Brooker... won the 2009 Columnist of the Year award at the British Press Awards'Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

He could be the world's greatest writer, but that doesn't make him a reliable source for "what people are saying". And "Amish"? WTF? HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Lupe Fiasco

' (Reverted. No explanation for including this person's opinion here. Might as well include mine and yours too.) ' - HiLo48

I'm (and I'm guessing this applies to you) not a public figure with my own Wikipedia biography: Lupe Fiasco.

His Obama criticisms are even mentioned in NME for goodness' sake: ' Fiasco previously described Obama as the "biggest terrorist" in America in an interview with CBS news. In another interview, this time with Philadelphia radio station Power 99FM, he described Obama as a "child killer" '

I demand that you revert your erroneous revision.

Also, reverting the 'UK Mayor of London' was childish and petty. I actually live in London, but had to click on his name to be sure that's who was being referred to, as it seemed quite far-fetched.Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd\

I'm sorry, but I had to look up what NME was. It's hardly a leading source of sophisticated global political commentary. Being a (supposedly) famous rapper doesn't make this bloke's opinion any more important than yours or mine. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

CBS News, WUSL, Fox News & 'the world's biggest standalone music site' NME seem to think that it does.

"Public image" means a lot more than the individual opinion of someone whose expertise(?) is in rapping. HiLo48 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we can safely say the opinion of a random rapper is about as relevant as the opinion of Snooki. Not sure why Boris matters either, to be honest. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@ HiLo48: I'm not suggesting that we delete the rest of the article. @ Scjessey: Please be aware that this was in the 'Popular culture' section, with connection to Fiasco's Obama-critical rap song (which has its own Wiki page). I've already mentioned that this was deemed newsworthy by several mainstream media outlets.Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Scjessey, I tend to agree. There is a big problem with listing the views of individuals. In many cases their views on Obama were established when they could first comprehend their parents telling them "We are Republicans", or "...Democrats". I'm sure that applies to many of our editors too. That really makes their views on Obama fairly pointless. What is always much better for an article like this is an analysis based on reliable surveys or similar of what larger groups of people think about Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Like the Charlie Brooker quotation above? Bizarre; Fiasco's criticisms aren't partisan: "I really think the war on terror is a bunch of bullshit...I'ma part of the problem, my problem is I'm peaceful". Where's the objection to including Ryan Lizza's personal opinions? ' How hip-hop fell out of love with Obama Barack Obama was once hailed as America's first hip-hop president. Why have so many rappers now given up on 'B-rock'? ' (The Guardian, August 2012). - Includes Fiasco's criticism. Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Charlie Booker is not a larger group of people. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

But the 'critics' he referred to, obviously are. Please stop stonewalling for Washington and let me improve the encyclopedic article for readers who are genuinely interested in both sides of the debate.Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Stonewalling for Washington? What? And to what debate do you refer?HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The debate on Barack Obama. He's a controversial figure, though you'd never know it from this fiercely protected propaganda.Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

I ask again, what debate? Do we have an article on it? Did you realise that Obama won't be standing for President again? Can't think what you're debating. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

An article about Barack Obama's public image cannot possibly be improved by including the opinion of a rapper, particularly a non-notable opinion that did not receive anything that could be considered significant mainstream media coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Google: Lupe Fiasco Obama terrorist (in addition to my aforementioned citations) to see how wrong you are. 'Lupe Fiasco Declares Obama a Terrorist' - June 9th, 2011, Rollingstone .Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

OK, so his opinion got published. There is still no evidence that it represents "the public". He could be a complete nutter, way off beam, and still have his opinion published. In fact, that would make it more likely. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere did I claim that it represented "the public". He has his own Wiki biography, his Obama-critical song featured in an album which 'debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 chart' sold 500,000 copies and his views were significantly reported in mainstream media, to a degree which merited article titles.Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

If his views don't represent "the public", then they don't belong in an article titled "Public image of Barack Obama". HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Religion

In the "Religion" section, the article asserts multiple times that Obama is absolutely certainly not a Muslim, despite stating that a huge portion of the population holds the opinion that he is. There is no irrefutable evidence that he is not a Muslim, so should the article be denying that portion of the population in such a way? Sure, I would understand the article's stance if a smaller percentage of the American population held that belief (say, 0.5%), but that's not the case.

Disclaimer: I don't believe that Barack is a Muslim. I really don't care either way, and I don't claim to know his religion, nor will I attempt to guess it. However, this portion of the article stood out to me as particularly polarized, and I thought that political polarization was the kind of thing Wikipedia hoped to avoid. 173.217.161.228 (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Huh. After reading a few other "public image" articles, I feel it's obvious that this a super-liberal site. I'll be sure not to read about any political topics here. Also, in light of the bias of the editors here, I'm sure that this talk page message will do nothing more than bring about an argument - it certainly won't lead to any real changes to the article. So... just disregard this, I guess. 173.217.161.228 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no irrefutable evidence that I am not Santa Claus. We must not let poor logic such as that, and the deliberately chosen path of ignorance of much of the US population, influence our articles. Is there irrefutable evidence that you're not a paedophile? HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That super-size chip on your shoulder, my dear HiLo, having something to do with "stupid Americans", is irrefutable evidence—Santa is always a jolly old elf (no chips on his shoulders). @ editor from Louisiana: you're too smart to be editing here—you have accurately diagnosed the political atmosphere here after just a few edits. It is a flaming liberal place. Regarding the topic: the only thing Barry Jr believes in is ObaME. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My point has nothing to do with my view of Americans, whatever you think that might be. Plenty of my own countrymen also choose dogma, ideology and ignorance ahead of reality. Anyone who thinks Obama is Muslim probably IS stupid, whether American or not. It seems the non-liberals would like to stop the liberals thinking liberally or perhaps even stop them thinking at all. The basic point of my previous post is that it's impossible to prove a negative such as Obama is not a Muslim. Obviously that point went over your head. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

All this is moot. Obama says he's not a Muslim, and no reliable source claims otherwise. As with any other religion, you cannot be a Muslim unless you want to be. Religion is not inherited. Nor is it some disease you can catch (although I sometimes think it is). This obsession with President Obama's religion is nothing more than the usual attempt to make him seem different. Haters will hate, I guess. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Article needs to be updated

This article as it currently stands is dominated by events that occurred during the 2008 U.S. presidential election and during Obama's first 100 days in office. It is absurd to assume that subsequent events during Obama's two terms in office have had no effect on his public image. As shown by the RealClearPolitics poll average, the soaring approval ratings that dominated during the time period this article focuses upon are gone and Obama's disapproval ratings now exceed his approval ratings. To prompt the needed discussions and updates I have added a {{Update}} template to the article. --Allen3 ^talk 21:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point, but remember that this is a global encyclopaedia, and Obama is a global figure. The article must reflect his global image just as much as that influenced by the internal politics of the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking for sources such as ["Global Opinion of Obama Slips, International Policies Faulted". Pew Research. June 13, 2012.] and [Stanley, Tim (June 13th, 2012). "Barack Obama's declining global popularity: the problem is with Obama the man, not America the brand". The Telegraph. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)]? You are correct that global image needs to be represented. That still does not mitigate the concern that the last five years in which Obama has had his greatest visibility are effectively ignored by this article. --Allen3 ^talk 01:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And you are quite welcome to update the article with content based on objective, relaible sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of references to polling numbers in the national sections, they're issue specific and many continue past 2008. Unless you can find some events they exclude, I believe the domestic sections are up to date. The only section that deals with general approval is the global image section. It would seem more approptiate to tag that section alone as outdated until someone adds recent poll figures. If you think that national approval numbers belong in this article then I see no reason not to include them, but their lack of inclusion doesn't make the article outdated. -Lciaccio (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Public image of Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131022031129/http://www.thenation.com/article/obama-black-me to http://www.thenation.com/article/obama-black-me
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081014025418/http://obama.senate.gov/press/080331-obama_statement_129/ to http://obama.senate.gov/press/080331-obama_statement_129/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 01:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Public image of Barack Obama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080118084202/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2007/12/28/america/obama.php? to http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/28/america/obama.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 23:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

'Boris Johnson compared Obama to Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) in Quantum of Solace; the African-American CIA ally of James Bond has a history of coming to Bond's assistance whenever needed.'

What has politician Johnson's opinion to do with Obama's public image ? Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)