This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lucyau.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Now that the main article has been sub-divided into several categories, I'm wondering if we should redesign the main Barack Obama navigation box. Under the Presidency section, there is Judiciary (Supreme Court Candidates). I'm wondering if we should do the same thing here, kind of like: Foreign Policy (East Asia, South Asia, Europe, Middle East). It would definitely make these branch articles more accessible. Yea or nay? Gaijin Ninja ( talk) 17:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Israel had withdrawn its troops the morning before the Obama administration. The NYTimes article covered this the next day, but nowhere mentions the time frame. Should this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.106.248 ( talk) 19:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Should Susan Rice really be listed as a major advisor along with Jim Jones and Clinton? She only holds the rank of ambassador. If you're going to add her we might as well add people like Robert Gates, etc. Joshdboz ( talk) 06:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Should we take a thematic, chronological or a regional/country approach to structuring this article or a combination of these? It seems to me that the article would be easier to understand and follow if we took a regional, country and then thematic approach to the article when the issues are broad enough to warrant special attention as in the case of the Middle East, Iran, the Middle East peace process including the conflict between the Israeli and Palestinians, Russia and Cuba. We should also develop his approach to terrorism, diplomacy, defense and support for development and democracy and implications including problems implementing it.
It would seem to me that these themes would provide clear cohesiveness across the article. People should be able to get a broad overview of Obama's foreign policy, understand the general background leading up to the start of his administration and subsequent events and changes in policies. If anyone has any ideas about how we can make this article easier to read please share them. Edward Lalone | ( Talk) 02:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The section on Nuclear Arms reducation with Russia needs to be re-written since it sounds like an opinion piece. Minor changes in wording would correct this problem. While a lot of the statements made sound like opinions they could probably be easily re-written or at least fact checked to avoid this. Statements like "it appears" have no place in Encyclopedia articles while any statements like "There are indications" should either be removed or a source that claims there are such indications and which also gives background on what these indications are should be cited. The statement that "Should this number be accurate it would represent an unprecedented reduction the existing stockpiles of both countries" should either be removed or a source should be provided that states that this would be an "unprecedented reduction" since it would be original research to make these comparisons. Once a source is provided the claim "Should this number be accurate" should be removed. Either it is accurate according to the sources or it isn't. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the numbers then it should be stated and citations to sources noting the disagreement should be provided. Edward Lalone | ( Talk) 07:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Leaving out the most important economic partner of the us is not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.81.187 ( talk) 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is Canada, the US's most important economic partner and fist stop for obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.81.187 ( talk) 00:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This article gives me the idea that the Obama administration has " Good cop/bad cop" tactics towards Russia; where Obama plays the "good cop" and Biden the "bad cop". Is this a true reflection of the policy? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted this because it was obviously out of context (in the below, Obama was speaking with a Captain Hook for a humorous gig at the Correspondents' Dinner:
Few days later he said "Now, let me be clear, just because he handed me a copy of Peter Pan does not mean that I'm going to read it -- (laughter) -- but it's good diplomatic practice to just accept these gifts" [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.102.68 ( talk) 03:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The country list is woefully inadequate. Some could conceivably mock others for creating such a patchy list. Some hot or warm spots are omitted.
An area for improvement would be to distinguish which areas of foreign policy the U.S. President engages himself. The U.S. President may not have his hand in all countries. The U.S. State Department certainly has, that's their job.
Also differences in foreign policy from previous U.S. Presidents should be highlighted. Dellcomputermouse ( talk) 15:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Big omissions include Australia. How about Japan? They want to buy F-22 stealth fighters but some in Congress refuse to sell it and the Prez won't step in. This is just off the top of my head. If given more thought, other countries could be found to be significant and missing. Dellcomputermouse ( talk) 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I am working on summaries of regions and trying to create a thematic approach to regional foreign policy of the Obama administration so that we can create individual articles for these regions and use this article as an overview of the Obama administration's foreign policy. This will be a daunting task so I hope that those with knowledge of European and Western Hemphisphere policy would be willing to tackle those areas or I will have to do extensive research to provide neutral summaries. The section on Muslim relations will need to be thematic and not focus on the Middle East or Asia since Muslims also live in other parts of the world so I have avoided writing a longer summary until I can include other parts of the world to ensure that it isn't regionally biased towards the Middle East. Edward Lalone | ( Talk)
DKqwerty undid edits by Venomviper. I feel that this was unnecessary and that the choice should have been to assume good faith and if necessary make edits so that it conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please discuss this here before reverting. If the text to closely matches the article being cited then we should probably re-word the text or quote from the article. I also don't think that this fits the definition of recentism. Edward Lalone | ( Talk)
Speaking of various preposterous claims for his administration, the president had the wit to say, "For my second hundred days, I will part the waters, and on the seventh day, I shall rest." Or words to that affect, joking about the "unprecedented" (to use the word where it seems most obvious) favorable press he was getting. This isn't restricted to the media.
In the article, we have, "Obama's gesture in reaching out to the Muslim world was unprecedented for a U.S. president." Come on! No president has ever done this in 230 something years? I rather doubt this. Nor do his words seem all that wonderful IMO. Student7 ( talk) 01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised the East Asian section doesn't talk about Japan and South Korea at all. Perhaps this warrants an undue weight tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleetman ( talk • contribs) 09:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably deserves a topic. Increased US military in Australia is an example. A lot of people say that this is due to the rise of China, which adds some more bulk and interest to the section. Crzyclarks ( talk) 23:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
n/t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.142.180.68 ( talk) 04:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this falls into the category "foreign policy", but rather "defense" or "intelligence." Agent Cooper ( talk) 15:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless I've missed something, the section on Africa defines Egypt as not part of Africa but the Middle East, and the section on the Middle East defines the Middle East as not including Africa. Consequently, Egypt, and any mention of Arab Spring, disappears. If I've overlooked where that is, apologies in advance. Agent Cooper ( talk) 16:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
BHO2's nuclear weapons policy is a big deal, everywhere on Earth outside of Wikistan. Why are we covering it up? Hcobb ( talk) 20:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
>> Obama lacked faith in Afghan policy: Gates >> Obama: Iranians 'deserve better' from leaders ( Lihaas ( talk) 08:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)).
We will obviously need a section on this. Here are some suggested sources, generally critical of the President:
Source: Standoff With Russia Fuels U.S. Defense Spending Debate, WSJ March 2, 2014
“The reality is that they do not have the military capability to stand up to Russia. That’s just a fact. I’m sure they know that,” he said. [endquote] Source: Exclusive: McCain Tells Obama How to Punish Putin , Daily Beast, 3-1-2014
Source: Republicans hit Obama foreign policy over Ukraine. David Jackson, USA TODAY 11:22 a.m. EST March 2, 2014
Source for both: Pressure Rising as Obama Works to Rein in Russia, NY Times, 03/02/2014
Source: President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy, lead editoral at Washingon Post, March 2, 2014.
Source: Putin Declares War. Will Obama and Europe let him get away with carving up Ukraine?, Lead editorial, Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2014
Source: What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response, WashPost op-ed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, March 3, 2014
Source: Putin Escalates: The Russian chooses facts on the ground over verbal threats in the air., WSJ editorial, March 6, 2014 -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 05:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
This page is incredibly cluttered in it current iteration. Some of this information is surplus and could be trimmed. I think that most, if not all of the quotes could go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventper ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
There also seems to be a lot of volume written about inconsequential phone calls. Phone calls should only be covered if of great consequence.
I'm going to remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventper ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you should give the people what they want MR Barack Obama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.246.72.237 ( talk) 03:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
whats up Obama when that change go come — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.246.72.237 ( talk) 03:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
if every body in the world was rich I think the world would run how it should — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.246.72.237 ( talk) 04:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
damn they making new bills every year or two — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.246.72.237 ( talk) 04:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Lihaas: "Foreign policy of the Barack Obama" seems an odd choice for the title. Is that what you meant? -- John of Reading ( talk) 14:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Foreign policy 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on
Foreign policy 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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
This entire article is peppered with spelling, usage, and grammar errors. I don't think I've the time to edit them all myself, so if there's anyone out there who has the language arts fu and the spare time to proofread this article, I think it would improve overall credibility. TheArcane03 ( talk) 10:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)TheArcane03
This entire article is peppered with spelling, usage, and grammar errors. I don't think I've the time to edit them all myself, so if there's anyone out there who has the language arts fu and the spare time to proofread this article, I think it would improve overall credibility. -- TheArcane03 ( talk) 10:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)TheArcane03
The Economist says that " He has also referred to the kingdom as a “so-called ally”-- but it does not say that he said that in 2002 as a state senator in a wholly different context. That = bad reporting by the Economist, whose readers have been fooled. Rjensen ( talk) 03:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The section on Russia shows a strong anti-Obama bias. It primarily consists of quotes, all of which are critical of the Obama policy. More facts and fewer criticisms would be useful in this section. In addition, at one point it reads "the misguided character of Obama′s Russia policy became evident..." Whether or not his policy is misguided is a matter of opinion, it is not a fact and should not be presented as so. I tried to correct this but someone said it had to be discussed here first. And then....I'm not sure how it actually gets fixed.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.us-global-trade.com/Hilary%20Clinton.Asia%20%28Foreign%20Policy%20Nov.%202011%29.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Describing people who were appointed to diplomatic positions based on financial contributions and party loyalty/connections as "political appointments" seems euphemistic and misguiding, since "political appointments" generally refers to any appointment by the President or Vice President. This term seems to be widely used in U.S. sources, e.g. at https://afsa.org/appointments-barack-obama and https://www.npr.org/2021/08/12/1026881895/biden-wants-to-reengage-with-the-world-but-his-ambassadors-are-mostly-absent, but it seems there must be a better, more descriptive term for this; seems important in combatting pro-U.S. bias
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nyt-libya-change":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)