SkipCaptcha, nsSupply_SidersR, nsSupply_Siders_
8,436
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − On this page we'll attempt to update the Barack Obama article - incorporating what we already have with some more recent information. − =Ideas= − ==Structuring== − This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details. − {| style="width:100%" − |valign="top"| − *Early life − *U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race) − *U.S. Senate career − **Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?) − **'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism''' − **'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase''' − − *Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA) − **Primary race − **National election − |valign="top"| − *Presidency − **Domestic policy − ***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act) − ***Economic plan − ****Stimulus plan − ***Health care − ***The Gulf oil spill − **Foreign policy − ***Commander-in-Chief − ****Iraq − ****Afghanistan − ****Libya/The Obama Doctine − ****Don't Ask Don't Tell − |valign="top"| − − *Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above) − *References − *See also − *External links − |} − − Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT) − :Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT) − − ::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small>01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT) − :::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT) − ::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT) − :::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT) − ::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT) − I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT) − − =The actual article=
Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update (view source)
Revision as of 08:19, May 7, 2011
, 08:19, May 7, 2011moving head to article talk
{{Officeholder
{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|name=Barack Hussein Obama