Talk:Obama

message: I would like to request the renaming of the Barack Obama page to Barack H. Obama.
This is line with the custom established by former Presidents of the USA, like:
- John F. Kennedy
- Lyndon B. Johnson
- Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Besides, as the pages are protected from editing (even the discussion) I would like 
to write that BHO has the support of most Western World countries as stated in: 
http://www.rd.com/selecciones/content/openContent.do?contentId=104891
(in Spanish,although I have not found the corresponding page in Reader´s Digest, about
"What if the world could Vote"--- with 
Found link at:
If not possible tell me why:
Truly yours:
MEXICO - AGS - --Dagofloreswi (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia:Requested moves" is the correct place to request page moves. --DAJF (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, can you do it for me?, I still do not understand how a page move can change an article´s name. MEXICO -- AGS -- --Dagofloreswi (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Those are personal stylings not conventions.  It wasn't until John Adams' son was elected that a distinction had to be made and that was with the full middle name.  Polk was the first President to be known with the middle initial. 24.6.207.223 (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because I don't think there is any reason to move the article, and you would be wasting your and everyone's time trying. There is already a redirect from Barack H. Obama, so I suggest you leave it at that. --DAJF (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Not all presidents have their middle name included, such as Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. In general, politicians in the United States pick their desired name during their campaign. Whether they include their middle initial, or even go by another name entirely (Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush) is up to them, and that's what the public (and, consequentially, Wikipedia) knows them by and addresses them by. JBlitz95 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama & JFK, FDR, etc. 

message: I came looking for the town in Japan.  There is no way around this redirect except to know what you are after.  By which time you already probably know what you are looking up.  Since this is a protected page, I couldn't fix it myself.  Point it to Obama, Fukui  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.207.223 (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a disambiguation link at the top of the page for people looking for other meanings of Barack or Obama. If you really think Obama should be a disambig page, you ought to first read the discussion on the subject from 2007 when Obama was still just a US senator. --DAJF (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that you can't get to the town.  Making the -pedia less useful is counterproductive, don't you think? 24.6.207.223 (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion by 24.6.207.223, Barack Obama isn't the only notable article on here about something named Obama. The page Obama should be a redirect to Obama (disambiguation). Iminrainbows (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be a disambi page 

message: Newt Gingrich brought up recently the most major controversy surrounding Obama, which dogged him through his 2004 and 2008 elections. It was brought up by Alan Keyes, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin, four different political opponents, not counting Gingrich. That's the Born Alive controversy, that Obama voted against the Illinois version of the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act - a bill mandating medical care for newborn children FULLY OUTSIDE THE WOMB SEPARATE FROM THE MOTHER. In the words of Pam Sutherland, head of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, Obama led a movement to prevent Americans from knowing Illinois Senators were voting against the bills using present votes:
"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
These were babies left to die after botched abortions and we passed the federal act making it a crime to let them die - Obama while in the Illinois Senate led the effort to stop the passage of Born Alive legislation, voting against 7 different bills related to it.
In Obama's own words (pp. 84-88 of transcript):
"Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was - is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as - as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?"
"Well, it turned out - that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny."
"Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably befound unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as - as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I - I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and - and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a - a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present."
This has received substantial news coverage over the years, played a major role in the last two elections for Barack Obama, and is already an issue in 2012. CNN did a major expose on it in 2008 and the Obama campaign admitted he had 'misspoke' in saying for 4 straight years that he hadn't voted against a bill identical to the federal bill which in his own words "everybody supported", following a confrontation between him and the NRLC. If you want notability, there is no way to deny this controversy. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newt Gingrich Claim 

message: Remove :Category:Surnames; the category is on on Obama (surname).
: implicitly adds that cat, it is not explicitly included on the redirect page. Any discussion about whether or not to include that cat should take place at Template talk:R from surname. I see there is already some relevant discussion from 2010 on that talk page. --Jeremyb (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see; I'll start one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: Can an administrator remove the "R from incomplete name" redirect category, because it 1. is a subcategory of :Category:Redirects from incorrect names and thus indirectly categorizes the redirect as both printworthy and unprintworthy and 2. is more of an alternative name and is typically not used on other surname redirects like  and , making this slightly inconsistent with them? I did not use Template:Edit fully-protected because this might be a controversial change. Geolodus (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve just come across this redirect & I agree with this proposed change, so I’ve tagged this section with  (even though it’s been a few years). A smart kitten (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   DanCherek (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change