Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Reputation as an orator

In this edit User:Wikidemon quite blindly restored a sentence in violation of WP:BLP. S/he says the article is on probation, then apparently reverts and points out "edit warring"... is there some sort of mandate against including scholarly opinion in the lead article on Obama (over and above WP:SUMMARYSTYLE)? I find it hard to believe nobody else sees anything wrong with the endless comparisons to Martin Luther King, Jr., Abe Lincoln, Cicero, etc. (cf. George Will's Newsweek article).

The 2008 biography explicitly states a) that given Obama's rising reputation as an orator, when he runs for the Democratic party nomination he could well be seen as equal to Reagan, and b) he gave speeches around Illinois in the vein of Martin Luther King. Now, the BBC News article begins "some writers describe him as the greatest orator of his generation". Haskins is a doctor of rhetoric and has written one book on the subject, and Collins was speechwriter for Tony Blair for two years. How exactly do they speak for anyone else in their fields?

For the record, the ref in question was originally added back in December 2008 by User:Kchishol1970, modified a couple of days later, and has apparently remained unchecked since then despite a related point having been taken to AN/I. Ottre 11:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As ottre presents the sources, that looks like four reliable sources. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that line says "Some" instead of "Many", which isn't any better then "Many", hence the tag. Can't we come up with a better line that doesn't use Weasel Wording? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The text I want to use:

deleted for copyright reasons - please use links and appropriately brief excerpts rather than cut-and-paste of external sources. Wikidemon (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottre 14:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As a procedural aside, one aspect of article probation is to follow WP:BRD very closely - if you want to make a significant change to a stable passage in the article, and your proposed change is rejected in a principled way, you should take the issue to the talk page and see what people have to say, as has now been done. Reverting the change back into the article means you are initiating an edit war - and it is appropriate for a third party to restore the stable version. But enough of procedure. On the substance, why are we even getting into Obama's oratory style here? He may have some echoes of ML King or Ronald Reagan, and he is known as a strong speaker, but he is hardly one of the great orators of history (in my opinion, and by guess, in the opinion of reliable sources). Part of the problem is that anyone who studies rhetoric and language seriously is more concerned with technical and scholarly details, and doesn't expend effort deciding like a music critic who to call "great" or "gifted." Almost by definition, any such designation is offered as personal opinion and is thus not likely to be in a reliable source. Even if we could determine how good or great Obama is at public speaking and who he reminds people of, isn't that kind of far removed from the substance of the article? I think this information is more relevant to the "public perception" article, and that any mention of Obama's speaking style should be very brief and factual, avoiding enumerating the comparsisons. Something more dry, like "a number of experts{{who?}} have commented that Obama is a gifted public speaker who reminds them of notable orators from the past." Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Barack Obama

I will draft a BLP-compliant, neutral, well-sourced, Criticism of Barack Obama article this weekend off-wiki. Please send me links to reliably sourced criticism of Obama's economic, foreign, domestic, and judicial policies, as well as of his campaign tactics. No "nutball conspiracy theories" please. See User_talk:THF#Criticism_of_Barack_Obama. THF (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? Such an article would be an inappropriate POV fork. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a movement on Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush to merge the content of Criticism of George W. Bush with the content of that article. Rather than creating an article focusing solely on the criticisms of Obama, couldn't this information be included in an article similar to Public perception of George W. Bush? In the case of Obama, that article seems to be Public image of Barack Obama. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Public image of Barack Obama is currently being messed around with because the primary source for conservative praise toward Obama has suffered from the closing of the website it came from. If we are going to be merging critical content into this article, I recommend it be watchlisted immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! :) I'll approach this with an open mind. You might want to install it in a sandbox before moving it to article space, so that people who aren't categorically opposed could have a chance to comment and improve before what I'm guessing is an inevitable attempt to delete it. Wikidemon (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this THF! I'll review it within the next 24 hours. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, discussion is still open at the Criticism of Barack Obama talk page. Protection is still in effect for the actual article, but it is temporary. JustGettingItRight (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Retaking of oath

I just added the fact that the oath was taken twice (well, once correctly) by Obama, and it was summarily deleted. Why? Is this not true? The fact is, he really didnt take the full and complete oath the 20th. This is important informaiton that received a good deal of news coverage that warrents mention. --Jlamro (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlamro (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC) --Jlamro (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already been covered here, but you're saying "the fact is" he didn't take the oath correctly. That needs a reliable source, and also proof of notability. Even if it were true that the oath wasn't legal (and that meant something in the grand scheme of things), you'd need to show why it is notable enough to deserve a mention in a bio this large. Dayewalker (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is trivial. It is covered in the appropriate article.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivial.Jarhed (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source here, [1]. Notable because the last time it happened was over 80 years ago with Calvin Coolidge. So the first president to screw this up in over 80 years seems very news worthy, if not at least for trivia. Miker789 (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The source says he was President since noon of the day before, so this is still trivial. Dayewalker (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Chief Justice Roberts screwed it up, not Obama. And yes, non notable trivia. CTJF83Talk 03:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable trivia.Jarhed (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Campaign Finance

Under the CAMPAIGN heading the article mentions that President Obama did not accept public financing of his General Election Campaign. Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that he made a pledge during the Primary Campaign that (gave the appearance) of agreeing to accept Public Financing? Before this is dismissed as a "trivial" issue, it is just this and other "trivial" issues that informed the vote of a good number of citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerusalyim (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd have a point if he made a pledge, he did not.--DemocraplypseNow (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've defended Barack Obama against some ridiculously spurious claims and puerile vandalism at Wiki and elsewhere, but I have to admit I remember this, during the primaries, and his being called on it from several quarters. From The New York Times[2]: "Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part (in public financing) if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, 'If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.'" To me, it sounded like this addition was emphasis to his "yes," but others have interpreted this as de-emphasis. Yes means yes, no?

In any event, that was a pledge—the very purpose of that questionnaire was to determine the candidates' pledges. Yet after Obama's lawyers met with McCain's lawyers with regard to this issue, the two candidates never did so much as meet to discuss it themselves. Obama campaign general counsel Robert Bauer said of the failure to meet over the issue, “It became clear to me that there wasn’t any basis for future discussion.” I find little defensible about McCain's campaign, and the mistruths and missteps on his side were constant and utterly stultifying. I don't doubt that McCain was telegraphed as intractable. Yet it seems to me that "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee" should reasonably have been expected to play out mano a mano, ultimate agreement or no. For a senator, "I" still means one person—them—and among colleagues, albeit opponents, aggressive pursuit has got to mean more than one meeting between underlings.

I'm not playing devil's advocate here; while we have a great many more important issues on the table, I am concerned about how future elections will play out as this recession abates if we can't seriously and sincerely address campaign finance reform. I think a mention in Obama's main article would probably be giving the issue undue weight, but I should think that with a few additional legitimate sources and a tightly-written paragraph, it is relevant to one or more of the articles about the primaries and general election. The shift away from public financing is, in the context of elections and campaigns, one of the major stories of the past decade and a half. Every four years the media sneers and harrumphs about it for a couple months but then completely ignores it again until the next cycle, when it's too late to move the ball down the field. This cycle the richest candidate was the one from modest means with the $5 pledges. Next time it may be an entirely different scenario. (Uh, anybody remember that ol' populist ranch hand George W. Bush?) The whole topic deserves more thorough coverage than it's currently getting in any one media source, including Wikipedia. There are citations about this going back to billionaire heir Steve Forbes; editors with the time and inclination (and free of anti-Obama rabble rousing) should set to compiling them for a better article someplace here, perhaps Campaign finance in the United States or a spinoff article. Abrazame (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting discourse if a little off-topic. This is not a political article, and what's more there is no editorial decision on Wikipedia that should be based on influencing political elections or the "public interest". This article is for what the world currently remembers Obama for historically, and his financing pledge didn't even get that much play at the time of the election, and that given when character assassination was clearly a big part in the campaign against him. You're welcome to expand the campaign finance article, but just because a POV about the subject is widespread does not necessarily mean there should be a POV fork of it. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

My effort to assert I'm not pushing anti-Obama POV, I guess, indicated POV in a completely different direction. Every major candidate from 1976 through Steve Forbes in '96 accepted public financing. That's not POV, that's fact. Since then, many candidates ultimately refuse public financing, some after enough of a head-fake to get them into the lead. That, too, is a fact, though I've arguably given it a spin there. I'm not quite sure how you figure an election four years off would be influenced by an article on the facts about the rise and at least stumble, if not complete fall, of public financing of elections. I'm not saying that's the only way to do elections, I'm not saying it's the best way to do it, I'm saying it's irresponsible not to know that something was not always as it is now, and how and why it has gotten here, which then is a tool to allow people to determine what they might want going forward. Another word for that is "history".

As far as that Wikipedia should not be based on serving the "public interest," I don't quite follow. You don't consider the concept of accurate and sourced information about relevant topics being in the public interest to be the very point of compiling and distributing an encyclopedia, and particularly one available worldwide for free? Libraries are in the public interest, if you see my point, as are the works within. What one might search them for is their own business, and as editors at Wiki no doubt glean from time to time, what they'll make of the information or with how many grains of tainted salt they take their facts is somewhat out of our hands. But material about the world in which we live, so that we might understand what is happening around us or even to us, and the causes and effects of various natural and manmade realities, is the whole purpose of knowledge of any kind, no? We learn so we can use this knowledge to shape our world, be it learning math so we might ultimately balance our checkbooks or learning civics so we might ultimately influence our elected representatives to fashion and obey just laws and responsible policies that reflect our best interests.

To suggest that "character assassination was a big part in the campaign against him" could be perceived as POV, but of course I don't deny that both the fringe and the inner circle in any election seek to do just that. POV because it was also a major part in the campaign against Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Joe Biden, and I'm not so blinded by my partisanship not to notice there was plenty of character assassination being doled out in McCain and Palin's direction. My POV is that the latter two deserved it more, as their campaign displayed less character to begin with, and in that respect part of it was character suicide. This was an element of the 2004 election, the 2000 election, and on back to George Washington. I would say that's unfortunate, but someone would call that POV. Having said that, it's your POV to suggest that because character assassination was so thickly applied upon Obama that A) one can dismiss those issues which the media didn't blow out of all proportion or B) because an issue was employed by character assassins it automatically loses merit if rationally and responsibly handled. If that were the case, candidates could employ their own character assassins to attack themselves on all manner of things real and made-up, and then have all those issues dismissed out of hand.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly (as it has the potential to diminish the whole Wiki project if anybody took your assessment to heart in other articles), I have to say your assessment that any "article is for what the world currently remembers (a subject) for historically" is way off base. For one thing, if one could even begin to say "the world" as a whole currently remembered something a certain way, that remembering would not mean it were so. There are many large corners of the world where the collective "memory" and going theories on quite a few things are ass backwards. We should never assume that because we're Americans (or whatever), or have a Western eduction, or are Wikipedia editors, we're above falling prey to, well, call it groupthink or propaganda or learned helplessness or egotism or any number of phenomena of complicit ignorance. For another thing, an article on a historical subject would ideally note how a thing (say a person, a president) was viewed at the time as well as what history came to interpret or "remember" currently. Anything else is a whitewash, and does not serve the moderately responsible people of a free society well, much less all the conspiracy theorists and crackpots chasing shadows. The whole point of education, which is what a reference material like an encyclopedia provides—whether it's reading a scientific article or an entertainment article or a political article—is to rehabilitate "current memory" with citable facts and relevant, notable, nonpartisan critique, not to preserve it as it was when it came in. Respectfully, Abrazame (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: Obama prays with five evangelical pastors

Which, according to NY Times, include Moss, Jr. [who, according to a few clicks on the Net, is Baptist], T.D. Jakes [non-denominational], Kirbyjon H. Caldwell [Methodist], Jim Wallis [ Evangelical Free Church of America or non-denominational] and Joel C. Hunter [Methodist or non-denominational]. ↜Just me, here, now … 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel this belongs in the article? If yes, why? SMP0328. (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Although it's true that not everybody around here is curious about religion in general or even Obama's in particular, some of us contributors await news of which denomination or at least branch of Christianity Obama aligns with post-Trinity (see here). So a report from the NYT that he has sought pastoral counsel from a number of Evangelical Protestants, although still not definitive, is at least interesting; but I myself think we should hold off at least for the time being on specifying Obama anything other than "Christian". ↜Just me, here, now … 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The article in no way indicates that he's using these five pastors as samplers for their faiths. It does say that he talks to them for input on the religious aspects of policy, and sometimes prays with them. I see nothing particularly worthy of inclusion here; there may be enough for a 'Obama does consult religious leaders for input about the theological aspects of policy at times' type line in the presidency article. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite right! --

President Obama has been without a pastor or a home church ever since he cut his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. in the heat of the presidential campaign. But he has quietly cultivated a handful of evangelical pastors for private prayer sessions[...].----LAURIE GOODSTEIN (NYT)

but supremely obliquely implies anything much pastoral is going on tween these preachers and the Prez. ↜Just me, here, now … 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Alone, this isn't notable. It might be notable if its related to why Obama made a particular decision. SMP0328. (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm speaking to O's religious identity (eg the article's infobox currently says, "Religion: Christian,<footnote> former member of United Church of Christ<footnotes>"). ↜Just me, here, now … 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also FWIW -- one of these pastors has a very indirect connnection with Trinity: Otis Moss, Jr.'s son Otis Moss III, appears to be the current pastor at Trinity. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand why everyone is interested, but please consider how personal this issue is. For myself, on this issue, I would appreciate a little circumspection.Jarhed (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal from Iraq

I believe it's been mentioned by others, but this article gives the very misleading impression that all troops will be out of Iraq by 2011. Plans for 30,000 to 50,000 "military advisors" should be noted. This is after all an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

At least they won't be there for a hundred years. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Opelio (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a referrence to McCain saying it was OK if we were in Iraq for 100 years as long as we weren't taking causalties, but this isn't a forum, so that comment really isn't appropriate. Tom 04:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, NPOV everyone. This is developing policy. Please keep the article updated. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Half White?

Shouldn't Barack Obama be described as "half-white" (since he is). Why is this not used in the description? Thank you. Azerbazi (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See Question 2 at the top of the page. "Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Thus we use this term in the introduction. Keep in mind, many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body". Hope that helps, Ironholds (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been debated many times, and the verdict has always been to use 'reliable' sources rather than verifiable facts. The definition of Obama as 'African American' satisifies the centre ground, but not those on the left who doubt whether someone from an impoverished inner-city black community could rise to the presidency, or those on the right who feel that his mother and stepfather (and their respective families) had a bigger impact on him than an absent drunk. This pattern of overstating the blackness of many mixed-race people has been going on for years, and it represents a rewrite of the reality. Many times I have attempted to get Obama's mixed heritage acknowledged in the intro (as it is for Lewis Hamilton, a fairly similar case), but have always been shouted down due to my verifiable good-faith position being a minority one.--MartinUK (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when has ethnicity been a strictly scientific matter? It's a cultural construct. And Obama is at least as black as Booker T. Washington and many others. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's fair enough then since the only thing about Obama's race that matters to Wikipedia is its perception by the majority, which when summed up in one short sentence has to be that he's African-American. None of this bile about who should get credit is relevant and Wikipedia is not a place to fight injustice. Lewis Hamilton is different because his achievement is not perceived so much to be about overcoming discrimination as challenging a stereotype, and as far as I know he hasn't written extensively about his racial identity. Also in my mind he's a little bit whiter - I think it's the nose. But of course, if Obama's mixed-race heritage became a more prominent part of who he is I'd absolutely support including it in the lead. I can't say that looks likely though. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody today is "as black as Booker T. Washington" if, as the same editor User:Timrollpickering says, "ethnicity...(is) a cultural construct." Washington's blackness, in your hypothesis, was a factor of what those in his era thought about blackness and "race mixing". Modern-day American culture does not evaluate or disenfranchise anyone on the basis of "one drop of blood" and does not condemn people to a certain class or status based on half or all of their race. Modern-day American culture is open enough to learn about and accept the entirety of a person's identity, including their heritage. People of mixed ethnicity are not forced, by law or by culture, to choose one race or identity over another. However, sadly, many of Obama's generation were, and bear in mind he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, where the color of his skin was even more of a uniquely identifying characteristic. As respectfully as I can say it, I think modern American culture would find it as offensive as I do to bring a person's nose into the discussion.

I find it absurd to suggest one's mother's race is not equally relevant to the race of the father in determining the race of their child, even if it's that child who suggests it. Yet in modern-day American culture it's his choice to make. Six decades ago it wouldn't have been; he would've been widely shunned as a black man regardless of what he had to say about it. Six decades from now, it probably won't be again, as people of mixed race will be in the majority and internal and external relationships to that mixture will have evolved from here. At the end of the day, however, the fact is that given the decades in which he grew up and this current decade, if Obama considers himself "black" or "African American" and does not identify with his mother's family's ethnicity, despite the fact it was they who raised him, nothing any of us has to say about it is relevant. His decision, and all it may mean to different people here and elsewhere, now and across the years, must speak for itself.

Having said all of that, I want to point out that the majority of the fair-minded and accurate media follows Obama's lead in characterizing his race. If it did not, then it would be an editor's responsibility to find a legitimate source in the fair-minded and accurate minority that did. Abrazame (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Obamas Name

Resolved

 – We also do use his middle name, and closing trolling thread ("slick willie"). rootology (C)(T) 14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When are the people going to use Obamas real name? All of the other Presidents were refered by their middle initial. JFK,LBJ, Harry S.Jimmy E. Carter., Slick willie, FDR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.49.0 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We go by what they are commonly known as, for the name of the article itself, which in this case is "Barack Obama". You will note that the very first line of the first paragraph spells out "Barack Hussein Obama II", his full and legal name. Also, I note how you cherry-picked presidents who are known by their middle name/initial, but left out those such as Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, etc... Also noted is the "Slick Willie" pejorative, which kinda gives away your bias in this topic. Oops! Tarc (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We do. JustGettingItRight (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For today only, can't we change his name to O'Bama? After all, his great-great grandfather is Irish. 216.163.246.1 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(...Viz Saint Paddy's (Day).) ↜Just me, here, now … 13:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of George W. Bush

Since this article no longer exists perhaps we should mention something about it in the FAQs so we no longer have to hear the "but they have that article" argument. Soxwon (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that the article is deleted, why would we still hear that argument? It's not acceptable to use the opposite, that the Bush article doesn't exist, to justify not having one for Obama, just as the WP:OSE argument wasn't acceptable before. Plus, there are still numerous criticism articles for living people left, perhaps to be dealt with. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I meant, was a little harried, my mistake. Soxwon (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ says that we don't have a criticism section in this article. I think discussion about what is happening in other articles is best left to the editors of those articles, and wider discussion of criticism of people is best centralized in guideline or essay pages, and meta-pages. Those things come and go and we can't keep up here. Having said that, considering there was a bit of a dust-up about that both here and in certain other corners of the Internet, it might be good to clarify the second sentence of Q6 so that instead of making a generalized proclamation that criticism should be worked into articles, we instead say that the choice made on this article is to work into this article anything that might be considered a criticism per WP:CRIT. Also, that we are not using this article as a master list of criticism, but that instead many matters not considered relevant or significant enough for this main bio article are covered in one of the many other articles throughout the encyclopedia that relate to Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a new question/answer to the FAQ? The #1 argument used by others is "But Criticism of X exists, therefore there should also be a Criticism of Barack Obama!" When the Criticism/controversy articles for Obama's primary opponents (Clinton, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson) were merged into other articles/deleted the only thing that changed about the "But Criticism of X exists" argument was that the value of X changed from the primary opponents to either Bill O'Reilly or George W. Bush. I'd imagine that since the Bush article is now a redirect the only change will be that the existence of the Bush article will disappear, and O'Reilly's, Putin's, Chavez's, or Reid's articles will be used. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should instead point them to those articles (GWB, Clinton, McCain etc) and mention that's what is supposed to happen and tell them to do that to X rather than come here whining? Soxwon (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We have, but that doesn't work unfortunately. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't delete an article on Wikipedia through page blanking vandalism. It has been reverted. This will be brought up on ANI and in the current ArbCom case if this continues. JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No one here was invovled as far as I'm aware. Soxwon (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard my comment. I thought the merge action was unilateral, which I would have had reason to believe so based upon some people's actions in the past few days. So my apologies. I would like to note that a merge is not a delete, though. JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The soapboxing that is going on is unhelpful and unnecessary. I would also like to remind editors here that there are criticisms and notable controversies in the G Dub article as well as in the now merged criticism article. That clearly isn't the case here and this article needs to be balanced with coverage of the issues and criticisms that have been raised and covered extensively in reliable sources. These include Obama's opposition to the Surge and military strategy, his controversial statements and associations, concerns over his spending proposals and issues over his nominations and appointments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. These are all criticisms by a select group of individuals, and do not in any way reflect mainstream opinion - as evidenced by poll numbers. Trying to get these sorts of minor criticisms into this article would be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. It is worth bearing in mind that there is a world of difference between "covered in reliable sources" and "covered in a preponderance of reliable sources". This claim of "extensive" coverage simply isn't true, and I suspect is more a reflection of what reliable sources you expose yourself to. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You (incorrectly) make it sound as if there is no significant dissent from President Obama's actions. The poll numbers do not agree with your assertion as you claim. I agree with your point on WP:WEIGHT, but that doesn't mean there is not significant opposition to several of President Obama's decisions. Whether an issue generating criticism is or is not ecyclopedic has to be decided on an individual basis. JustGettingItRight (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you actually identify some "significant" opposition for me? I am unaware of anything that could be construed as "significant". There has been right-wing opposition. There has been Republican opposition. There has been "fringe" opposition. None of these have been "significant" insofar as that they had any effect on anything, apart from attracting ridicule. And frankly, poll numbers on virtually all matters continue to show public support for Obama and his policies. Maybe my understanding of the word significant differs from yours. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll numbers show a majority of support for Obama (60%) ... they do not show unanimous or even 2/3rd support. That is significant dissent. In fact, with the exception of George Washington and James Monroe, no President has ever enjoyed full support of the population. However, I don't think that fact is germane in deciding whether to include or not include material in an article, but I do think that citing "lack of dissent" as a rationale is rightly going to get shot down. The dissent from the Congressional Republicans on the stimulus was almost unanimous, save Specter, Snowe, and Collins. Is discussion of the stimulus notable? Absolutely. There are several other policy decisions that have engendered criticism, most recently discovery that the Obama administration allegedly told Chris Dodd to insert one line in the stimulus bill that would guarantee payment of the bonuses for AIG executives. But would I advocate including every action of Barack Obama's presidency and any potential criticism in this article? No, for the simple fact this article would become too big if we were to do that. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's numbers are now lower than Bush's were at the equivalent period in his presidency, with one-third of Americans strongly disapproving. A three-to-two majority says his policies are adding too much to the deficit.[3] But the number to watch is generic ballot, since this has predictive value in the terms of the congressional elections. It's 41 GOP to 39 Dem now, compared to 41 GOP 47 Dem at the time of the last election.[4] That's an eight point shift -- it would be a Republican blowout if the election was held now. Kauffner (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent), look, this will come off as negative and maybe even a bit condescending, but honestly: You guys are harping on the same points that have been harped on continually. You can claim consensus by Liberal Mafia or you could show some respect for the editors here and acknowledge their efforts in constructing this article. Anything less of, "I respectfully disagree, and present you with $_argument as civilly supported by X, Y, Z..." is going to be met with increased resistance from the editors here. Then you will have created this cabal of elitist liberals yourself, cuz ya know what, what should they listen to you if you aren't saying anything they haven't heard a million times already?75.66.180.72 (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Technical matters

We need to do something about the size of this page

Maybe my computer/internet connection is slow, but the article page takes forever to load. JustGettingItRight (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have commented about this in the past. The size of the article has little bearing on how quickly it loads; however, there is significant (there's that word again!) use of templating that may slow things down, not to mention huge popularity. It is possible that the large number of references is partly to blame. I totally agree with you though - it takes many seconds for the page to load, or for an edit to be completed. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is currently 30 kB (4866 words) readable prose size which is actually at the shorter end of our major political figure BLP scale. As Scjessey says, the many images, cites, and nav templates all take their toll. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While the templates are a bit of a drag, the major causes of drag are going to be the 221 references and multitude of images. Even if the cite templates are switched to a manual formatting the page will take forever to load. Just check out the load time on John McCain. Ferrylodge converted that one to manual formatting and it still takes a bajillion years to load. Granted, McCain's article has 49kb of prose to this article's 30kb, but you get the idea. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bottom main page section missing

Somehow in the last day or so the whole bottom section (templates, categories, etc.) went missing. What happened? Which is the last stable version of this? I wanted to restore it but I don't want to use a version that is too old and will lose any helpful intermediate edits. Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It displays fine for me, though it takes bout 10-15 secs sometimes. Maybe your connection is timing out. Tarc (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Stimulus plan

Republican cheerleading?

Just out of curiosity, how is this line removed "Republican Cheerleading"? [5] I realize this is a fact that Republicans, in general, are proud of. But it did happen that way, and is a matter of opinion as to whether it should be a good thing. Why would it be removed on the basis that it makes Republicans look good, or "cheerleads" for them, when it seems such a important historical fact and very relevant to the subject, what with one of Obama's touted goals being creating non-partisanship and all? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It was removed because it was not biographically-significant in any way whatsoever, but I described it as Republican cheerleading because of the use of "without a single" and "only 3" - as if it was something to be proud of (as you alluded to). How Republican politicians vote is not relevant to a biography of Obama's life. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, ChildofMidnight just disruptively restored these irrelevant, non-biographical details without any kind of talk page discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the mechanics of Congressional legislation is not biographically important to the President (absent some special reason that it is relevant to him). But can we please confine the discussion here to article-related matters, and use the proper forum (if any) for characterizing an editor's work as disruptive? As many probably know, there is an arbitration case open regarding Obama-related articles which, among other things, may give us some guidance on how to deal with disputed content, and editors who attempt to insert it over the opposition of others. Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is little reason to keep any of the legislative history. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The opposition to his stimulus/ spending plan is certainly notable. Like all criticism and controversy it has been censored from the article. But trying to include it is entirely appropriate. Whether the article notes the vote along partisan lines or the many voices of opposition, it needs to cover these issues. This is an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree, It is indeed notable. However, not for a main overview biography of Obama. I'd like to see the info on his presidency page, and of course the stimulus/porkulus article. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion of Obama's involvement in all sorts of bills in this article, most of it utterly non-notable. This is the largest spending bill in the history of the United States. The idea that opposition to it shouldn't be noted isn't supported by editing guidelines and policies. There needs to be a place in this article where notable opposition, controversies and criticisms can be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with CoM. We can certainly say "The bill passed without a single Republican voting in favor."--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to Obama's spending/stimulus plan

There is no reason to remove notation of opposition to Obama's spending/ stimulus plan. Wikipedia is not censored. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

We've been had! Quick! Burn everything related to this liberal cabal of CENSORING FASCISTS we're all a part of. :roll: 75.66.180.72 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder - this page is not supposed to be for complaining about, much less mocking, other editors' behavior. If you have a substantive point about the content, or the process of editing it, maybe you can say it directly. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I get carried away sometimes. CoM, here's some constructive criticism: do not frame this as being between you and phantom censors. No one has any reason to fairly and objectively evaluate what you say when you open by attacking everyone who has already spent time working on this article. "Censorship!" works at WND, it doesn't work here. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the reason for omitting opposition to the plan is not "censorship"; the reason is that it is not of enough biographical relevance to put in a summary-style BLP. It should come as no surprise that Republicans have objected to a Democrat's actions. In order for that to be biographically interesting, however, Obama would have to respond to the objections in a highly notable way (thus becoming engaged with them as a subject), or else he would have to be viewed in a highly notable way in light of those objections (thus becoming engaged with them as an object). Apart from insulting the intelligence of anyone who is remotely familiar with American two-party politics, pointing out that objections exist could also violate WP:SYNTH as an attempt to divert the reader's attention to a counterpoint rather than to shed light on Obama as the subject or object of a biography. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already included in this article discussion of bipartisanship for far less notable bills than the largest spending bill in the history of the U.S. Pointing out that the vote was along party lines is very notable and more balance needs to be included in the article. Every minor bill Obama has ever touched is included, but there's no discussion of major issues and concerns expressed by those who have opposed his policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep referring to a spending bill? I am not aware of a bill of that name. Is this a proposed bill, or just an existing bill you are misrepresenting? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bill which spends, and it spent the largest amount in history. All CoM is missing is a hyphen. It's frankly embarrassing how much irrelevant bickering and faulty arguments are being thrown from both "sides" here. Of course the nature of the passing of this bill is important politically. The biographical relevance will depend on how big the bill becomes in the context of the coming years. We're very much making up history as we go along here, so please don't get so hung up on fine points of weight. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Which bill? The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009? These are the only significant bills signed by Obama thus far, and none of them have the word "spending" in them. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring this up so that we could get into partisan wrangling (again). I brought it up because I thought the point was relevant to the sentence (at the time). That's what a biography should do. Present the facts as they are relevant to the person. I digress. I don't think it belongs after all, now that I've read the context a little better. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So just to be clear when Obama " sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation" it's worth including, but when his legislation is opposed on a partisan basis it has to be excluded as non-notable even though the legislation itself is far more notable and controversial and there has been national news coverage of the dispute? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a rhetorical question, no? It is a case-by-case question. If Obama had a significant impact on a bill's passage being very unusual or remarkable, the Congressional proceedings in which he was involved might be relevant to his biography. The routine situation in Washington, where bills pass or fail on party line votes plus a little arm twisting, is not biographically important as a general matter. As part of that, bipartisan passage of a major bill may very well be more of a stand-out than the usual strict party vote, but it all depends. Wikidemon (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the operative point is that the president did have significant involvement with this legislation, which was not routine (at least we hope not). The legislation was crafted to be "bipartisan", but was clearly not, a fact that received significant media coverage from a variety of sources. The operative question is does it belong here, or perhaps in Presidency of Barack Obama, or maybe both? Newguy34 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of coverage that Republican legislators broke rank over working on a bipartisan stimulus bill, not that the bill itself is partisan. If it turns out in hindsight that this is the beginning of the end of Obama's efforts to create an era of bipartisanship then that failure would probably be a significant enough life event to go in a bio article, but it is too early to tell whether that will happen or whether this particular bill marks that sea change. Wikidemon (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's bowling skills

There should be a sentence about it in the article. See: Special Olympics takes on use of 'R-word'. It is so unacceptable that when somebody make even here a criticism about Obama's politic then there is a very large chance that it will be reverted/user deleted. Even so in such situations when Obama clearly in a brutal way attacks a group of peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.240.229 (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How did I guess? Tvoz/talk 01:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But the article alludes to his skill in basketball! Why not counterbalance this with mention of a sport that he's not so good at? Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No there really shouldn't. And it was a self-deprecating comment, not a comment towards a group of people. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If he habitually played bowling, badly, then we should put a line in, as per basketball. Since he does not, we should not do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, hence the easter-egging of my entire comment there. He's probably not a very good trapeze artist, either, given that he (like most people) has never been trained as one. It's sort of amusing to see the lengths folks will go to in order to say something negative about him. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Were he to come out one morning with a spot on his tie or dust on the cuff of his sleeve, Obama detractors would no doubt demand a sentence or two in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, there is an obvious POV bias because we are only talking about Obama's poor ability at an indoor American ball-tossing team physical sport. We have not even begun to say how bad he is at goat head tossing, laser tag, or competitive ghost riding. Moreover, without discussing Sarah Palin's bowling skills in her article, or Vladimir Putin's either, we are clearly showing an Obama bias. Wikidemon (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the US/UK special relationship and Gordon Brown's Scottish connections, suggest also caber tossing evaluation of Obama, with Obama in one of those long kilt things.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorse creating Caber-tossing skills of Barack Obama, and further recommend Failure of Barack Obama to buy a round of drinks in a pub, in the Scottish manner. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we not mention either? All material about Obama's current athletic skills are trivial. SMP0328. (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a joke. For most of us, that is. Tvoz/talk 22:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I THINK THE FIRST SENTENCE SHOULD READ THIS: Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the Grammy winning 44th and current President of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plok82 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! But you need a hyphen between "Grammy" and "winning". Just a few more edits and the world will see him for what he truly is: a mediocre ball player with a successful recording career. Abrazame (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We should probably also say something about how his ears can't bowl without a teleprompter and a copy of the Qur'an. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No no - that's only true of his left ear. He bowls well with his right ear sans technology or religious texts.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with the poster's idea that Obama's bowling skill (or lack thereof) is relevant to this article or warrants inclusion, I am taken aback by the failure of many editors to follow WP:AGF in this section. Some editors kindly addressed the original idea, but most chose to mock the idea. I don't understand why. Jogurney (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to assume good faith when an editor springs up out of nowhere just to lecture established editors on there being "not enough criticism" about Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

Americans call it "Indonesian" but many people around the world call the language "Bahasa Indonesia" or "Bahasa Indonesian". I favor the 2nd but don't care that much. Spevw (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo selection

A missing important photo is his Senate photo. Maybe replace the Lugar photo with the more important Senate photo. Spevw (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama

This recent creation was tagged as an attack page for speedy deletion, and I just deleted it. I just wanted to make sure we're clear ... well-sourced, balanced information about anyone, including Barack Obama, is and always has been welcome in Wikipedia, but pages which exist only to disparage their subject will be deleted on sight, no matter who the subject is, per our policy on biographical material of living persons. As with any other deletion, anyone who disagrees is welcome to take the article to deletion review. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet there's a page for Criticisms of George W. Bush. If Wikipedians would not like to see this resource attacked as biased, then I suggest you STOP SHOWING OBVIOUS BIAS. SoheiFox (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And if new users want their opinions accepted, read about our

policies. Grsz¹¹ 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

They were read, thoroughly. Assume good faith and allow an article to be brought up to snuff, instead of eliminating with hostility. Especially when it's an article type with precedence. One more time, if Wikipedians want to be seen as an unbiased source, then they need to BE one. Try assuming good faith instead of enforcing an obvious bias. SoheiFox (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the point trying to made here, is that there are policies that dictate what goes into the creation of an article. You acknowledge you've read them, but you don't seem to acknowledge their content or if you've met them. Accusing Wikipedia of bias isn't assuming good faith. A lack of criticism is not tantamount to bias. And inclusion of all criticism, however minor, isn't tantamount to balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Jedi Master (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez ppl, he's been President for 3 months, he hasn't even had a chance to screw up that bad yet...Soxwon (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns have been noted, and rejected. Time to move on, and to cease being disruptive. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think SoheiFox is being disruptive. He is raising legitimate observations. Let's all try to play nice. Newguy34 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Demanding a criticism page for Barack Obama is most certainly disruptive, especially when the reason given is that some other politician has one. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, come on, old friend ;). I think the fact that there is a Criticism of George W. Bush article assumes that these types of articles are acceptable. Now, we all know they are not, but that doesn't mean he is being disruptive for bringing it up. I suspect some of the same folks arguing against a Criticism of Barack Obama article will be arguing for keeping the existing Criticism of George W. Bush article. Newguy34 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

When there are notable criticisms about one, and only fringe theory criticisms about another, why wouldn't we argue that? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - No. Criticism articles are stupid, regardless of how much of a complete douchebag the subject of an article is. Criticism should be carefully woven into regular prose at the appropriate place. In the case of Obama, for example, major criticisms should be in this BLP (although there currently aren't any), and minor criticisms should be in the relevant child articles. Bush has a criticism article because the people who created it are lazy, but that is not a matter for this group of articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) There are already valid criticisms of the president's policies, and him. But, they belong woven into the articles. Newguy34 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any significant criticisms of the man or his presidency. Obviously there are a few minor criticisms, but nothing in the scale of Bush and Cheney thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

They already are "woven into the articles", such as Public image of Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, how about his "say one thing, do another" policy on ethics vis-a-vis lobbyists, or maybe the "I wish I could get a cabinet level secretary who actually paid taxes" matter, or "I can spend a trillion billion dollars and have the market crash further until there's nothing left" view of economics, all of which are already woven into the article, as Tarc recognizes. Newguy34 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, but is sounds more like you're rattling off topic headers of WorldNetDaily's front page, rather than criticisms of your own. Point being, fringe criticisms from unreliable sources do not make it into Wikipedia articles. Just because you read it on your favorite blog or internet forum, just because you read it on a lot of your favorite blogs and internet forums, that doesn't make it notable in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the funny part is your bias seems to make it impossible for you to crack the door open even a bit to other possibilities. I don't know if my observations are on WorldNetDaily's front page, as I don't read it. I do know that they are shared by many of us plain ole, not as smart as you, not as cultured as you, normal little people out here. Oh, and they happen to already be in this article, complete with cites to reliable sources. Oh, crap! How did that get past the "Protectors of the True Faith from the Cultural Agency" that thinks, "we're smarter than you because we don't adhere to fringe (aren't they all if they don't meet with your approval?) theories ?! Newguy34 (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Many" ? No, they aren't. That's the essential point that evades you. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I was referring to the 43 percent of the voting public that don't think the president is doing a, umm, how do you say, very good job. And, those "fringy" little people cite the three criticisms I noted above (as well as others) as support for their opinion. Well, I mean, it's only 43 percent. What's a 100 million or so voters to the crowd that knows better than the "unwashed masses"? Newguy34 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, if you have a valid point, then it could easily be made without resorting to sarcasm. You could start by letting us know where this number is that states 43% of Americans don't think he's doing a good job. What source are you getting it from? And if the criticisms you site are already in the article, I'm at a loss to know what you're asking for. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That figure that Newguy34 mentions may have come from the 16 March 2009 Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll which indicated approval ratings of 56% somewhat approve or higher, 43% somewhat disapprove or lower. These same poll results show a strongly approve rating of 36% (down a bit since he took office) and a strongly disapprove rating of 32% (nearly tripled since he took office). And the target demographic for the poll was 41%-D/33%-R/26%-I, so it's not just counting knuckledraggers. Opelio (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I imagine there will be a place for an article such as Criticism of Barack Obama. I don't like the title myself, preferring the plural form of "criticisms", but it's equivalent to what editors settled on for a title in the case of Criticism of George W. Bush, using "criticism" essentially as an abstract, collective, mass noun. The Bush article has been nominated for deletion for a second time. If it does not survive the AfD the question about whether there should be an article on Criticism of Barack Obama ought become moot, IMO. But the probability appears reasonably high that Criticism of George W. Bush will survive its second AfD just as it did the first. Obama certainly is not beyond criticism from either the political left or the political right. Such an article will of course need to be consistent with WP:NPOV and other content policies rather than just an attack page. If there's enough material at this point in his presidency to start one, then someone should start it and let the arguments begin about what's fair game to include in such an article, as happened with the Bush equivalent. I imagine it will go through WP:Articles for deletion just as the Bush article did. But if it's started off with an NPOV tone and with reliable sources in support it seems to me it'll have a good chance at surviving. That said, I have no complaint about Dank55's deletion of the attack page that was started as a POV fork from this article. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is madness. It makes no sense whatsoever to have articles about anyone or anything that contain only criticism. It is impossible for such an article to be neutral. Any Wikipedia article that has "criticism" in the title should be deleted. Frankly, the same should really apply to section headings. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so. But see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_17#Criticism_of_George_W._Bush, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_George_W._Bush. The entire history of nominations for deletion of that article can be seen at Talk:Criticism_of_George_W._Bush, near the top of the page. Plainly the consensus is to keep such an article. Presently there's a discussion at that page whether to merge it into Public perception of George W. Bush. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That is utterly irrelevant. As has been said many times before, stuff that goes on at other articles has no bearing on what happens here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what goes on in other articles very much has bearing on what goes on in others. That's how you keep NPOV, which really seems to be an alien concept on Wikipedia when it involves political figures. Do you get it? A criticism article on one public figure throws open the validity of other public figures having similar articles. To act otherwise is to utterly fail NPOV. Disruptive is a horrible way to attempt to dismiss a call for proper NPOV. They are either allowed article types or they are not. To fail to assume good faith and delete a criticism article out of hand fails two of the major things Wikipedia is supposed to adhere to. This is not mob rule; not if you want to be taken seriously. If you feel the need to defend one President from having such an article but are entirely for another President having the same type of article, then you have too much bias. It is time for you to move on and edit something else; you are not mature enough to maintain NPOV if you hold such a mindset. SoheiFox (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose time will tell, though it's hardly irrelevant. The trend in WP, very much against my own preferences, has been to allow and retain articles devoted solely to criticisms in a wide variety of topic areas. The article on objections to evolution immediately comes to mind as another example among numerous similar approaches across the wiki including the present form of the Bush criticism article. I don't agree with this trend, but it has unquestionably occurred in the past several years and Wikipedians who disagree with this trend have been unable to prevent the increasing number of such articles that have a strong local consensus to continue to exist. Most importantly, wherever such a page exists, it is a widely agreed that it must not be an attack page. Rather, where such a page exists it must be a neutral presentation of criticisms based wholly upon reliable sources On the other hand, editors at this article can indeed arrive at a different local consensus than have editors in other topic areas, that is, to interpret WP:NPOV more narrowly in terms of choosing topic titles than has been the case elsewhere. In this case, even despite that criticisms of Obama exist from both the political left and right, I personally maintain that such an article would constitute a POV fork. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

While balance is obviously the operative, it should be expected that things like GWB and evolution get their own "criticism" articles. These come about when the criticism become a notable topic in their own right. Dozens of books have been published with the sole topic of criticising both GWB and evolution. They are a matter of interest to both those who sympathise with the criticism and those who don't because the criticism is exceptionally vocal (i.e. it goes beyond assorted disagreements that most things attract). The same can't be said for most (though not all) of the criticism directed at Obama. For the moment, it remains stuff which is dismissed to different degrees by his supporters, the mainstream media and the public as typical responses from those who oppose him on political or ideological grounds. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Or why not just look him up on Conservapedia? Gave me a good laugh. Euaaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.137.81 (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Teleprompter

Where is the section that he can't talk without a teleprompter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.215.230 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC) I'm Ron Burgundy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.47.15.10 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's nowhere, because we have yet to see a reliable source making any such assertion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Right-wing radio is having a fun time with this subject, but it is mainly a joke and has no place in this article.Jarhed (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And again you perpetuate this believe that Wikipedia is controlled by Liberals.(which will eventually be it's downfall) Search google news, you will find articles about this. 72.10.215.230 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS, you will see why it doesn't matter either way. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly seen that contradicted in other articles. 72.230.38.207 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Though he may use a teleprompter quite a bit, it is really not relevant in regards to his overall life. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

His overall life, no not really. But his "Great Orator" skills are looking more and more, "not so great". AP just released another story about him not doing well because of his reliance on a teleprompter. Did Martin Luther King use one? Nope. A great orator is someone who memorizes his speech and then can give it and vary it and jump around in it because they know it in their heart, and eat, sleep and breathe it. They are comfortable in front of anyone and can talk off of the top of their head on that subject.

He appears to be reading a script and if the script stops, he has no idea what to do. I'll come back with plenty of factual and approved sources. Miker789 (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources for us to potentially use and state exactly what the fact is and how is it notable. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are three sources. Did not need all three since this story is not an opinion piece, it is just a report of the factual event that happened on March 17.

[6] [7] [8] Miker789 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

These sources do not explain how this amounts to anything more than slightly amusing trivia, and they do not indicate why it would belong in an encyclopedic biography written in summary style. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Latte. It's one incident, and not notable in the grand scheme of things for a President. If it becomes an ongoing problem with Obama (and a defining characteristic of his Presidency), it belongs in the article. Otherwise, no. Dayewalker (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It shows that we have a president that may not be able to string together a coherent thought unless he is scripted. Here are more sources.

[9] [10] [11] I am just reporting the factual info of his past problems with speeches. When you watch the actual speeches where the telepromter goes out or he tries to speak without one, many have reported that his speeches were lackluster. This is in direct contrast to being a great orator. I am being neutral and just referencing what reporters have said. I thought that was what Wiki was supposed to do, just compile the facts. Miker789 (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is much more than just a compilation of facts. Maybe, if this becomes something, add it to one of the sub articles, but not the main bio. Tom 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is a funny issue for pundits right now, but there is no consensus that it is a substantive issue. Perhaps the issue will develop. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if this is notable, and I believe it is based upon the mainstream news coverage on this, it may not warrant inclusion in this article because of WP:WEIGHT. Ordinarily, for your smaller articles, you might include such information. However, this article serves almost as a summary, with several sub-articles branching off. Thus, I don't think this material belongs here, lest this becomes a bigger story going forward, but I would say it might be worthy to put in a relevant subarticle (say speaking skills of Obama or something like that). JustGettingItRight (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is also a much more efficient way to work on a big topic than this. Rather than argue here and spend pages stumbling over rhetoric and policy principles, address it in the articles with narrower scope, make sure they are balanced and give appropriate weight, and then read through them and compare how a summary style section should look with what we've got. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Mr Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the "teleprompt president" over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech." Source: "Obama In St Patrick's Day Teleprompt Blunder," SkyNews, 18 March 2009.

I added an item, with two citations, about emerging criticisms that his reliance on a teleprompter is perhaps excessive, compared to previous presidents or other public figures. It makes sense that a section including praise he receives for his oratorical skills would also mention criticism, or at least a caveat concerning a possible source of that skill. --SHarold (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why was this deleted? In a section that describes his "cultural image" and includes the opinion that he is one of the greatest orators of our time, citing one opinion article, it makes sense to include the opposing viewpoint. I don't think you can say this is a topic without "weight" when you include one opinion but not another. Unless a good reason is given for deleting this, it ought to be put back in and I will re-insert it, after discussion (unless there is none). --SHarold (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I have not read what you added that was removed, so I can't say anything about that, but I do agree generally with the need to be encyclopedic and not a mere echo. On another topic, here is a joke, but it may link to reliable sources: http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/ --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this an example of what happens without a teleprompter?: "President Obama Jokes About Being a Bad Bowler: 'It's Like the Special Olympics'". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for dissing the article subjects, or for posting links to snarky partisan blogs and infotainment sites. Many of those pages have their own comments sections where puerile Kool-aid drinkers on both sides can get their jollies pounding each other. We try to responsibly craft appropriately balanced encyclopedia articles here. "It may link to reliable sources"?! That's neither legitimate nor compelling, it's promoting this talk page as a gathering of gossipy fault-mongers. Abrazame (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said! But I did not have a bad motivation. Instead I thought it might be a useful gateway for finding a useful article, particularly given the newness of the issue. Hey, I guess I could have been wrong, but if it pays off with a valuable source, then it was worth it. Not every effort I make to improve Wikipedia articles will be perfect, but at least I'm making efforts. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't read a good reason why a sentence extolling Obama's skill as an orator should not be followed by a sentence critiquing his oratory. It's not a question of WP:WEIGHT, since I only added one sentence to balance another sentence. Again, the issue is not use of a teleprompter per se as much as it is a changing perception of his cultural image, and the re-evaluation of the opinion that he is an astounding orator. --SHarold (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You may not like the reasons, but they are stated. The whole issue of "balance" is inherently POV. The article is written in summary style, not point counterpoint style. It is not necessary to follow every issue that may be perceived as positive, with the counter-position by those who disagree. The weight issue goes to the prevalence of sources where, for now at least, there is a lot of material about Obama's speaking in general, and only a small flurry of recent articles about use of teleprompters. Further, you hit the nail on the head when you mention cultural image. There is an article entirely devoted to that, where the material can receive much more full treatment. Incidentally, as I have said elsewhere I think that the material praising Obama's oratorial skills and comparing him to various other speakers also received undue weight and should be trimmed back.Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon and have cut the offending paragraph. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

New article on teleprompter usage

I stumbled across this little gem a few moments ago, and I thought perhaps regular editors might like to take a look at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All I can do is facepalm. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope this does not become a trend... we're going to have to deal with one of these every week, when humorists, slow news day reporters, and anti-Obama folks come up with some new piece of trivia to cover that week? I'm just waiting for the article on Obama's smoking habit, and Obama's annual physical. Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Now taking wagers on Obama-Leno Special Olympics controversy. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the president could help fend off these types of things that follow celebrity if he'd slow up on the night show apperances, televised March Madness bracket picks, etc. Newguy34 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually watch Leno? He gave an interesting, articulate and unscripted explanation of the financial crisis with respect to AIG and beyond. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I did, but what's your point? Interesting? That's a matter of opinion. Articulate? Sure, I guess. Unscripted? We will never know. Certainly it appears he didn't use a teleprompter for his appearance, but the president of the United States doesn't sneeze without a script. I'm watching his remarks right now, and there's the "ping-pong" reading from the teleprompter, yet again. Newguy34 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's arguably as notable as Jon Stewart's 2009 controversy with CNBC. Soooo... ;-) --Ali'i 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean "arguably as pointless for an encyclopedia subject", right? I suppose we're going to get a new encyclopedia article now every time someone has a rough talk show interview. Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) To be fair to the Jon Stewart story, it did receive a lot of attention over a continuous span of time. That's about the only good thing I can say about it, because after the event the entire thing fell off the radar and no serious consequences seemed to follow. Also, Cramer v. Stewart can be written into the relevant articles, "TOTUS!" cannot. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• So accolades for Obama's speaking is very notable and must be included, but the substantial coverage of misstatements, controversial statements, and teleprompter use should be excluded? Interesting. I hadn't realized the New York Times was a right-wing propaganda enterprise. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• As to the first part, yes. Obama's oratorial style is a significant biographical matter, and fairly important to who he is and how he functions in his career. To the extent the article digresses and it becomes a collection of accolades or disparagement, that drifts off point and should be trimmed and posed in a more encyclopedic style. An article about a person says who he is and what he does - it is not a point / counterpoint collection of praises and criticisms. As to the second part, again yes, the teleprompter usage matter is not covered to a sufficient degree, nor is it relevant enough in my opinion and the majority of others so far commenting, to be worth including in this article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't commented on this latest thing, so let me add my voice that his oratorical style is notable and and an important facet of who he is, and therefore must be included in any biography. The teleprompter use is ridiculously unimportant, however, as are his poor bowling skills and every word he utters. <mantra> This is a biography of a person's whole life and career. </mantra> Tvoz/talk 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

An alternative to Obama-Leno Special Olympics controversy would be List of Democratic party jokes about the Special Olympics ("even if you win, you're still retarded"). Andjam (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• The matter was just referred to by the BBC in a national news radio bulletin. The story seems to have legs and yet there is no mention of it here or at Public image of Barack Obama. This is not NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is also not news (which would hold true even if it weren't a slow enough news day at the BBC to have a news bulletin about trivia). Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam" by Daniel Pipes

Partisan blogs are not reliable sources, and we really don't need to cover this same ground for the 100th time.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From http://www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-obama-practiced-islam In the article, Daniel Pipes concluded: "Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates my statement that he "for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father." Wikipedia recognizes Pipes as an expert on the subject and so the above research should be included in the Family and personal life section. See also: http://www.danielpipes.org/5845/barack-obama-through-muslim-eyes http://www.danielpipes.org/5544/barack-obamas-muslim-childhood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.3.155 (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Just drop it, dude. The article's point-of-view is already set in stone and is not going to be npov, ever. If Obama himself were to declare that he did practice Islam or was born somewhere other than Hawaii, or was close friends with Ayers or did attend Wright's church, it's still not going in the article. Let it be. Just... let it go. Ikilled007 (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Why do you say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.3.155 (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Just ignore him. Ikilled007 has already been warned (and blocked) for this kind of shit-stirring sarcasm soap boxing. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC) umm is DanielPipes really a reliable source for such an important bit of information? U need a range of sources and atleast some major ones for such things to be added. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed. Not a reliable source, I'm afraid, on account of Pipes being a right-wing xenophobe from Rudy's pathetic primary campaign. This stuff has been discredited by legitimate news organs. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Well, Pipes is quoting legitimate News organizations, the LA Times and Chicago Tribune, in basing his claims. I don't want to paste the entire article so you will need to read it, but just to quote him a bit: "on the larger issue of Obama's religious practices during his Jakarta years, it confirms the Times account. Note in particular three excerpts from Barker's article: "Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia" – implying he was an irregularly practicing Muslim. "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said" – confirming that he did pray in the mosque. "Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family [said that] ‘Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo'" – confirming that Obama attended mosque services." Why is Pipes not a reliable source? He has been involved in the Middle East for three decades and has observed a lot of changes in that time. He has many supporters within the anti-terrorism factions of Islam. No mainstream source would dare to reveal that Obama has a Muslim background if he does.--MartinUK (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC) To add one more important quote from Pipes: "All this matters, for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world." How relevant is this to our times, when Obama is attempting to reach out to Iran? I'm sure the above isn't lost on Ahmadinejan who comes from a very literal, hard-line strain of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.3.155 (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Seeind as Ahmadinejad personally congratulated Obama for his success, that being the first such since Reagan, I assume that even he doesn't buy into this conspiracy theorist tripe. Sceptre (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC) And Iran also rejected him in other contexts: Iran's top leader largely rejected an unusual overture made Friday by U.S. President Barack Obama, the Washington Post reported, but Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did offer some chance of reconciliation if Washington dramatically alters its policy toward his nation (see GSN, March 20). - http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090323_5211.php But this issue doesn't have to be included. Just the fact that Obama did go to the mosque with his father. As future events unfold we will all be wiser as to what else needs to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.3.155 (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC) ←Let's be clear about this. Pipes is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. He may be knowledgeable about Middle Eastern matters, but his personal website cannot be used as sourcing for a BLP. In addition, reasonable people should have grave concerns about someone who would say this: "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said" – confirming that he did pray in the mosque. I have followed family and friends into churches on many occasions, but I am (and always will be) an atheist. Being in a church does not automatically mean he prayed. Maybe he just want to be with his stepfather. And how credible is the testimony of the neighbors when we know nothing about them or their motivations? That is a supposition on the part of Pipes, and if he is willing to make guesses like that and call it "confirmation" then his evidence must be treated as highly suspect. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC) We don't have to say that he prayed, just state the facts. And for Wikipedia to say: He describes his father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." Pipes showing us, from first-people accounts, as reported by the LA Times, that Obama's father attended mosque AFTER Obama's mother met his father and that Obama joined him irregularly. That proves that the above is incorrect. Whether Obama actually prayed too or not, I think its common sense that a boy his age will follow his father (I really can't imagine him just sitting in the corner doing nothing) but we don't have to state that he prayed or not. Just what we know: both Obama and his father attended mosque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.3.155 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Pipes' "facts" have been discredited. His "confirmation" comes from his own distortions of evidence. This is an Islam-hating political opponent of Obama, a former Bush appointee. Not reliable. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Daniel Pipes is simply not a reliable source on this particular question - end of story. Against his (highly agenda driven) account we have scads of mainstream media accounts (and Obama's own first book) which say that Obama did not practice Islam - one thing from Pipes does not cancel all of that out. One might also bear in mind that Obama's mother was essentially an atheist/agnostic and that she was the one who raised him. But the real issue here is Pipes' reliability. I'm afraid that anyone who seriously suggests that he is a reliable source for an incredibly controversial claim like this simply does not understand Wikipedia sourcing policies. Those policies include some of the stuff at WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:REDFLAG which notes that "exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources." Saying that Barack Obama practiced Islam is an exceptional claim: Daniel Pipes is an exceedingly low-quality source. His claims (about Obama and many other things) have been widely criticized, and at the time he was saying this stuff he was advising Rudy Giuliani in his presidential run, and is thus the exact opposite of an objective, uninvolved observer. If this discussion continues to go nowhere fast it should be marked resolved. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

More than 60 days in office and not one word about his Presidency

The man has been POTUS since late January and there is not one word about his Presidency. Not one word about his order to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan, not one word about an $800 billion stimulus plan, not one word about the multiple WH plans regarding the financial industry. Don't you think the first 60+ days of this administration are newsworthy? 98.218.226.1 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, which article are you reading? Did you miss the section headed, cleverly, "Presidency"? This is a summary-style article, so the details and longer discussions will be found in the sub articles that are listed under the headings - as in Presidency of Barack Obama - but there is indeed a short summary of the beginning of his presidency right here in our article, talking about the things you mention and more. And, by the way, "newsworthy" is not our standard here - we're not writing a news article, we're writing an encyclopedia biography of his whole life and career. Take another look at the article. Tvoz/talk 03:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

True, in principle, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but in practice it reports on what's very new. (As hinted by what we see at the top right of the top page.) And the notability guidelines aren't so far from "Has this at some time been newsworthy?" -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, although I do think "notable" and "newsworthy" are a little different. But ok, on that. Tvoz/talk 04:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming the anon is a newbie. I suggest a See also section be added to the article. That should prevent the misconception that Obama's presidency isn't being covered in Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we've exhausted the "See also" discussion already - they are throughout the article and I don't think that is what the problem was here. And yes, he/she is probably a newbie, but newbies can read, and there's not much evidence that this person read the article. Is our "Presidency" section not exactly what he says we say "not one word" about? Does it not have a clearly marked pointer that says Main article: Presidency of Barack Obama? Sorry, but AGF only goes so far. Tvoz/talk 04:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this will be quickly removed, but out of loyalty to the cause, why is the statement that Obama won't smoke in the white house more important than the disputed birth certificate? (That has sparked many news articles and lawsuits regardless if you feel they are worthy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.241.45 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The point about not smoking in the White House is not particularly important in my view, but I also don't see a real problem with it being there. The birth certificate issue is a widely debunked conspiracy theory. We don't include widely debunked conspiracy theories about living people in their bios, though the controversy is obviously covered here. Readers who come to Wikipedia wanting information about the birth certificate issue will find it, they just won't (and should not) find it here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Because Obama really made the statement that he will not smoke in the White House, i.e., the statement has something to do with reality. And because the statement comes from Obama, who is notable, whereas the birthergate buffoonery comes from--oh, why am I even bothering? Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Essentially, this article is Obama's biography, so it covers matters which are agreed to be important parts of his life. The lawsuits are documented extensively at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

whoops!

Text on this subject reads "Early life and career. Main article: Early life and career of Barack Obama. Barack The Bomber was born at...etc"

Barack The Bomber?! Surely not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.69.96 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed. I remember a Frankie Boyle joke that said "'Obama' must be the worst name to have in American politics: it's halfway between 'Osama' and 'A bomber'! He might as well have been called 'Muslim Ogunbomb'!" Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

People who revert vandalism should remember to click the purge link at the top of this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what does purging the cache do?LedRush (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PURGE for a full explanation, but basically it forces Wikipedia to delete the cached version on the server and rebuild the page. Being a hefty, popular page, the cached version gets called upon often. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we conclude, as detailed on WP:PURGE, that the cache is purged whenever the article is edited? The purpose of the manual purge is to propagate updates to templates and images on the page. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Controversies and criticism" section

Conversation about a different article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At Presidency of George W. Bush, a section entitled "Controversies and criticism" exists. An editor has raised a proposal to remove the section, as per precedent established here, and per WP:CRIT. Although the section deals with someone other than Barack Obama, I thought to alert editors here to the discussion because the issue of this type of section has been dealt with multiple times regarding Barack Obama, so I imagined such experience would be useful in determining a decision regarding the proposal. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Presidency of George W. Bush#Criticisms/Controversies section. Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance if you get involved. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC) What happens at another article has no relevance to what happens at this article. Grsz11 23:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC) What happens in real life has no relevance in this article either, but I digress. Grsz is right. Each article has its own talk page and nothing about one article is binding on another.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo Agenda

rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why do all of the photos of Obama posing with one other Politician exclusively include Republicans. This seems to be a political decision to portray Obama as bipartisan by showing him only with Republicans. Things like this, however subtle, undermine the integrity of the article because they suggest a deliberate effort to portray the president in a certain light that they find advantageous to him politically. The point is that it doesn't make sense to show Obama with only Republican senators, and not a single democratic senator. JohnHistory (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory There are em.. two such pictures, one of which is him with someone he co-sponsored a bill with. If you have some suggestions for some alternatives pictures, don't hold back - let's hear them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Cameron, I think you misunderstand John. He's lusting to see a photo of a Democrat, and Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter don't satiate him. John, how about you tell us which is your favorite Democratic senator. As with the photos of Republicans in this article, it has to be someone notable for doing something positive in conjunction with the president, signifying something greater than just eye candy. Your candidates? Abrazame (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Please do not denigrate me. Can't we just discuss the issue without personal conjecture? I think Obama with Ted Kennedy (that was seen as a key endorsement) or Obama with one of his fellow Dem colleagues and leaders like Pelosi or Reid would be more balanced then 100% republicans. By the way, Carter and Clinton are not senators that served with Obama. Ironically, even the photo you are talking about has Obama sandwhiched in between both the Bush presidents not next to carter or CLinton. JohnHistory (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory I suppose I apologize. You came in here full tilt imagining some conspiracy, fast and furious three times in the face of reverts. I took you for a lunatic stridently pushing a POV agenda. Pelosi and Reid preceded Obama in their posts. I don't see how Obama's interaction with either is particularly notable or that they have yet accomplished anything specific together. You will note that no current Republican officeholder is pictured in the article, for the same reason. My point remains: photos are not presented for eye candy, rather, they show notable moments that illustrate the uniqueness of the article subject. Precisely for the obvious reason you stated, there is already a shot of Obama with Ted Kennedy in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. There are two shots with Joe Biden in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. There is a striking shot of him with Biden and Hillary Clinton as he signs the Lilly Ledbetter Act in the presence of its namesake. 2008 Democratic National Convention features shots of Barbara Mikulski and another of Clinton and one with Obama and the Biden family. I'm sure that as Obama's young term gets underway there will be notable moments with colleagues of his own party, and editors eager to include them pictorially as is deemed notable to his bio (again, as distinguished from the myriad articles about those issues themselves). In Bill Clinton's article, there are three pictures of him with the Bushes, one with the Reagans and none with any senators from either party. Jimmy Carter's bio has three shots with various Bushes and no senators. By contrast, both Presidents Bush articles have many more photos of Bushes (kidding) I mean they each have only one photo of any Democrat, and the senators are few and far between. This isn't a requirement. Neither is it a taboo, nor a conspiracy. If, as you seem to suggest, Obama is intending to send a message by purposely sidling up to Republicans at every turn, then our searching for stock footage of inadvertent encounters in hallways with Democrats isn't serving the public with the true story, is it? One does not achieve balance in an article by creating it artificially for its own sake. If you don't want Obama to seem extraordinarily bipartisan—if he is not extraordinarily bipartisan—how about adding pics of some notable collaborations with Dems to the Bush articles? Abrazame (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC) First of all, wasn't this archived so that I couldn't talk? My point is that Obama is 100% depicted alongside Republicans. If you are comfortable with that then I think you have made yourself clear. I think it is ironic that you bring up Bush's page here yet every time I have seen someone do that they are shot down for discussing a different page. Kind of funny, huh. Again, Obama is depicted only with Reps , the one photo for all the presidents getting together has him next to the republicans, etc, etc. You said they had to be notable, yet one of the Rep's didn't co sponsor anything with Obama at all. My point is clear, and if you look at the photos you can tell that there is purposeful posing of Obama with only Rep's. Period. that is not balanced. You didn't show that the other pages followed this pattern (however off topic that has been declared here) at all. in fact, none of those men were senators so that is why they are not posing with them (nor with the opposite party). ON a page like this which is manicured to the follicle it is hard to believe that all of these pictures are giant coincidence and they just couldn't find any with him and his own party. By the way, thank you for continually insulting me. JohnHistory (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory How do you get away with acting like this? Calling people "lunatics" and "lusting" etc. I point out that the photos are 100% with Republican senators and even the presidential get together has Obama between the Bush presidents and you come at me like this? Where are the admins? JohnHistory (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory I archived this and you were called those things b/c the point you are pushing is meaningless and stupid. The force with which you are pushing it suggests you are either amongst the many trolls who try to insert nonsense into the page (see above) or really fascinated with a point that really doesn't matter. Soxwon (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC) did you just call me "stupid". I cannot believe this. You block people for personal attacks and then you just come at them. THis is totally relevant. JohnHistory (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory No, I called the point you were pushing stupid, and since this seems to be a pattern of abuse I'm just going to ignore this. Soxwon (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for engaging on the issues and not personally insulting me by calling me "stupid" "lunatic" "lusting" etc. The hypocrisy is so rife that its almost hilarious. To think I was blocked for merely saying the word "juvenile" but you guys will be just fine. You are the one who has to live with it not me. Why can't you have an honest debate without insulting and denigrating those you don't agree with? Is this the state of wikipedia today? I hope not. The issue I brought up is not ridiculous it makes sense. Why didn't any of you notice this? JohnHistory (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Obama's approval rating falling

Why you write only the positive items about Obama?! From the current article: "In 2008, Congress.org ranked him as the eleventh most powerful Senator,[75] and the politician was the most popular in the Senate, enjoying 72% approval in Illinois."

That's good, but you write 0 words about his big rating's falling, source:

• Poll: Obama's popularity slipping

It would be good to write about it also in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.149.128 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the main difficulty with this article will be making adjustments to the section on his presidency since we must write that in summary style. Ultimately I think we'll need a sentence or two on his overall approval rating and how it shifted over time. I don't think we're at that point yet though. If we were going to say something about his approval ratings right now, it would be that they are still fairly high, hovering around 60%. In the poll you cite, the decline in approval (5 points) was probably close to the margin of error (though the increase in disapproval was more significant). That's just not significant enough to include in his biographical article.

What the presidency section lacks now, but which we'll definitely have to have eventually, is a brief discussion of Obama's economic policies, and that might be a good point to discuss approval ratings. But I think we're a couple of months away from being able to cover that properly. A good landmark, so to speak, might be at the end of the First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency. Media are guaranteed to widely cover that and evaluate the presidency up to that point, and I imagine that would also mark a good point to discuss Obama's approval rating and to generally revise the section on his presidency. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Approval ratings are only biographically relevant with the benefit of hindsight and statistical significance. Neither of these apply to Obama right now. I agree with Bigtimepeace's observations about other more likely foci for improvement. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A link to the existing first 100 days article might be useful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Approval ratings go up and down. If it is mentioned, it is only appropriate to mention overall trends, if even that. Of course, detailed remarks would be ok if there is an article about the "Approval Ratings of President Barack Obama", if such article exists. Spevw (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of approval ratings is that they drive media coverage. When president's numbers are up, the press asks, "What is he doing right?" When the number are down, its all, "What's he doing wrong?/Why is he screwing up?/etc" Whether they are statistically significant or measure anything real is beside the point. They don't allow you to predict an election outcome because approval of one person is a fundamentally different thing than choosing between two. Kauffner (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, we are not the media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that's all. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The media is otherwise known as the RS, what we are supposed to be basing the article on. The article on Bush puts stuff about the approval numbers in the lede and also has a chart of all the ups and downs. Kauffner (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bush had 8 years to get those ratings, Obama's had a little over 2 months. We can put the approval ratings after he's been in for a signicant portion of time. Soxwon (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Obama does not. But if we did decide to include approval ratings then we would presumably look for an RS for them. Go figure. Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"A little over 2 months" -- I like it. Yeah, this president thing is way overrated. A flash in the pan, really. He'll have to be reelected before it rates more than a couple of paragraphs. A year from now we will regain our perspective and who knows? Perhaps Obama the memoir writer, Obama the community organizer, or Obama the legal intern will prove to be the more enduring image. Kauffner (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but it seems silly to rate him when he really hasn't had a chance to see any of his programs through, or even implement most of what he ran on. (heck he's 1/24th of the way through his term, can you honestly get a good gauge of the man's support?) Soxwon (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider fluctuations in the popularity rating of the president to be a biographically significant issue, and that is unlikely to change. It may have slightly more relevance to the "presidency of..." article and in due course to the re-election campaign. Presidential popularity is something for speculation and political operatives. When all is done, after the fact, it will probably deserve a single line or so in his biography as an adjunct to the overall assessment of Obama as president, perhaps more if there is something particularly notable or unusual about it, less if it is unremarkable. Going over it in more detail in the meanwhile is news-ish and recentivism. At some point we will probably want to make a standing note, as in the FAQ, that this is not an issue for the article. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of reaching consensus as quickly as possible: I am against the inclusion of polling data until it is clear in hindsight that the polling is relevant and notable. I would like to see focus return to how to include more information on the stimulus/spending package, major economic policies (including GM, TARP and Treasury), Afghanistan and Iraq War policies (some of which I think was added? Does it belong in the intro?) and content regarding his cabinet (appointments and major figures). ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hardly any of that belongs in the article at this point, and certainly not in the intro. Minutiae of that nature is for the "Presidency of..." article, because they are not biographically-significant. A summary of the more meaningful stuff will doubtless become necessary in the months and years to come, but they would have to be written from a historical perspective once some sort of impact has been ascertained. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wagoner

See WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOT#NEWS. Plus, since this seems to be just coming out, it's largely unverified. "Claimed" to be asked by Obama does not equal fact. Grsz¹¹ 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (heck can we just lock this for 10 years, then try and edit it with a little more perspective?) Soxwon (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that material will never be fit to be in the article or only that it isn't until it's confirmed by a reliable source? SMP0328. (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We mean that it's impossible to measure the relevance a single event has on the entirety of Obama's life the very day it happens. Grsz¹¹ 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Or for that matter is laregly based on unnamed sources (this is Wikipedia not the New York Times) Soxwon (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems like some people around here are reading from the same talking points cue cards. Time and time again, on various articles, they use the reliable source justification, in complete ignorance (willful or intentional, I am not sure) of that fact that RS policy does not exist in a vacuum, and is not the sole arbiter of what can appear in Wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is relevant because it is highly unusual for a president to tell someone outside of government...you are fired. But I am willing to wait a few months to see how this whole thing plays out. If the auto issue remains a significant part of his presidency, then this may be an important point.

I am also willing to freeze the presidency section completely and open it for editing every 6 months. We'll then have some handle on what's important. Why not write WP:OLDNEWSONLY Contino (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is now verified on many reliable news sources that Obama got Wagoner to leave. By that criteria, it must to put back in. However, it the prioritizing proposal is agreed to (bottom of this page), then I'm all for not including this because it is not as high priority as the economic stuff and the Afghanistan stuff already there. If we can't even agree on the basic, un-controversial idea of prioritizing information, then the Wagoner edit should be re-inserted. Contino (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Case-by-case basis is best. There is no logical reason for putting the Wagoner material in, and you cannot use your own nebulous inclusion criteria proposal as a justification. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The GM story, and the broader matter of presidential intervention in private companies that the government is bailing out, are still playing out. The dust will not likely settle for months -- we don't even know yet if it is a turn-around, break-up, take-over, or demise. Obama seems to have a hand in it personally so depending on how it plays out it may ultimately be one of the important moments of his presidency. But it may not. Like a lot of current events we probably can't judge the importance until later, in hindsight. Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Need to define what is included in article (Proposal of 30 March 2009)

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One person removed a section about the auto bailout and firing (asked to resign) of the GM CEO. This leads me to think that there needs to be a more orderly process of editing. The WP:Not News argument is used. That's a way to argue against inclusion. How about arguments for inclusion? Before you say something, the argument you use should be applicable to every edit, not just the auto/GM one. This will help the article if we come up with a defined criteria for inclusion. Continued news reporting should NOT be a criteria. Look at newspaper within today. There is no mention at all of Pearl Harbor. The Pearl Harbor bombing is unquestionably encyclopedic. So daily news coverage is not a criteria. Border control issues are probably very important to the communities near the Mexican border. Yet that might not be much of an issue elsewhere. If you accept this to be true, then should the criteria be that Wikipedia is only geared to the general audience and not a specialized audience. If so, then subjects to be included in this article should be geared to the general public with exclusion to specialized audiences. To summarize, I think that after a while (as of now, an undefined period but certainly not 1-2 days after the event), we should consider major items that either pertain to the general audience, are of interest to the general audience, or that the general audience would think are one of the major points of Barack Obama. The exception would be content which we are certain will stand the test of time (such as winning an election or having a heart attack). I would like a few people to agree with the above paragraph. If you disagree, then you should state what are the criteria. By doing it now, we make it objective and orderly. Contino (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC) To my mind, things like WP:SS define what should be in the article, and things like WP:BLP define what shouldn't. This article is supposed to be a summary of Barack Obama's life, which means it summarizes significant facts and events (consensus discussions determine what is and is not "significant") and broadly describes a few other biographical details. I'm not sure defining specific things will be all that productive. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC) If we don't define it then there is a risk that people who love him will want only positive things and people who hate him will want only negative things and people in the middle who want an encyclopedic article will be so turned off that they will leave. Also, by not defining inclusion criteria, we risk just a popularity contest. We all know what happened to Bush, Sr....very popular then not popular. A reasonable criteria would be that all sections must have a valid reason for inclusion and each section must summarize the most important points and have no unimportant points. For example, Obama's childhood dog, if he had one, would be less important that Obama's school that he went to. Therefore, the school information has higher priority. By having these criteria, you no longer support or oppose information you like or don't like. I think this is the best way to define criteria objectively rather than "if I see it and don't like the subject or information, I oppose it". This is also a way to get rid of "Is Obama really an American?" because that is of so little importance compared to Obama's date of birth and college information that it can be objectively disposed of by the importance criteria. Contino (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC) To my knowledge we've never had a successful concicse proposal anywhere in the encyclopedia for deciding in advance what the exact criteria are for whether content should be included in an article. So I doubt it can be done here. Instead, the decision is made on a case-by-case basis via a mix of many content policies, guidelines, essays, and principles, plus sound editorial discretion. Things must be reliably sourced, neutral, not of undue weight, relevant and significant, and in the right place. They should educate the reader, be written at a level accessible to an interested lay reader, give a better encyclopedic understanding of the subject matter, avoid offering opinions and argumentation, be structured and in prose form where practical rather than a directory or collection of facts, avoid "in universe" descriptions, etc. I doubt any rule would dissuade truly partisan or biased editors, it would simply give them some new rule to construe the way they want. The best way to go about it, for all the rest, is not to think in terms of information being biased or not (unless it is over the top), but rather whether it helps tell the story of Obama's life and career, which is what the article is about. Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, it is probably best if I make all the decisions around here. What's in or out will, henceforth, be on my say-so. Editors wishing to get their biases in to the article can PayPal me a bunch of money. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I can't believe that we are unable to agree on a simple criteria. The easiest criteria would be that each section heading must be the most important section headings possible and that every subject in each section must be the most important that exists. If we oppose this, then is it possible that we are not objective? For example, Obama's early life is described. If you propose something that is more relevant than what exists then it sticks. If it is less relevant than it will be the first to go. For example, Obama's math grades are far less relevant than what there. It goes (it's not even there now). Obama's date of birth and parents are far more important that the date of his parents wedding. This doesn't mean that the wedding information goes. It only means that if the article grows too big in 10 years, we will abide by the prioritizing of information. We should all agree in principle that eventually when the article gets too big, we will prioritize what is included by comparatively considering each topic/sentence. If we can't agree on this, then we should stop all editing until we can agree on such basic, non-controversial principle. Contino (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I'll bet there are literally thousands and thousands of BLPs on Wikipedia. I would imagine that of all of them, this would be the very last one where everyone would be able to "agree in principle" to anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC) So then it could mean that you or I can insert information which isn't as high priority? If you don't agree to this simple prioritizing idea, then I have doubts of that person editing. It's just like opposing murder. If you support murder, you have no business in Wikipedia. Contino (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I certainly hope it's not a case that Scjessey seems to suggest; that there is no consensus to keep things of high priority and not have low priority topics in this article. If that is the new lack of consensus, then there will be disorder because the GM CEO info goes back in. I only agree to not having it because it's low priority compared to other stuff. If we can't agree on prioritizing stuff, it should go back in. Let's reconsider Scjessey's idea. Contino (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC) What makes the forced resignation of the GM CEO a "high priority" in regards to Obama's biography? It certainly isn't the first government forced resignation of a CEO and it isn't going to be the last. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I am not aware of any other forced resignations? What are some? Contino (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Should have checked here before I answered on my talk page, but the Bush Admin forced the CEOs of AIG, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae to resign as a condition of their bailouts. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC) (after ec) - Just to be clear about this, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is the most important and biographically-relevant, the GM CEO stuff rates at roughly minus 800. It would, of course, be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT to even breathe a whisper about the auto industry or AIG bonuses or anything else that is the populist-outrage du jour. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC) What Wikidemon says here is precisely correct. The only thing I'd add is that for a Featured Article, as this is, we also need to have "engaging, even brilliant" writing. (So, for example, a paragraph of four sentences, each starting with "He", needs to be rewritten even if we reach consensus on the content.) And as for the GM CEO resignation - no affect on Obama's life story, so no relevance to his biography. If circumstances change, we re-evaluate. Tvoz/talk 21:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Unanimous passage: Proposal of 30 March 2009: After some initial, what seemed to be oppposition by Scjessey, it now appears that there is 100% acceptance of my proposal that inclusion of an edit is a result of prioritizing the content and proposed content of the article. Therefore, if something of very low priority will not be included and things of high priority must be included. Commentary: What this means? Right now, nothing. My guess is that something like his date of birth is of the highest priority. Something which is trivia is of low enough priority so that it does not appear in the article. Contino (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Hmm? I'm not sure I see where there was a !vote on such a proposal. Heck, I don't even see where anyone is agreeing with you. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC) This was all rather confusing. Grsz11 22:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what this is all getting at - this is not the sort of proposal subject to consensus and passage. Article content is subject to consensus. Content standards and editing procedures are subject to policies and guidelines far removed from this page, and cannot be overturned locally. Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC) "cannot be overtuned locally." ? This proposal just reinforces current guidelines about prioritizing information that is included and not having trivial stuff, that's all. Nobody should oppose it because then you're supporting the inclusion of trivial stuff. You can be silent now but if you aren't silent, you're either supporting or opposing the proposal. It seems as nobody opposes the proposal, which is the way it should be.Contino (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC) It's not a proposal. It's how things always were. Grsz11 22:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC) If by "reinforces" that means the so-called proposal doesn't change anything, then it's moot and moot matters are nothing to be approved or disapproved. If "reinforces" means changing anything, then I see no purpose in reinterpreting existing policies and guidelines as they might apply to this page, so I neither support nor oppose, nor am I bound as an editor to follow, such a scheme. I prefer not to edit by "prioritizing" the importance of various things, if that means ranking them on a scale from most to least important. Rather, including things in any article is a subtle mix of whether information is encyclopedic in nature, timely, ephemeral, related to the subject matter, instructive to the reader, well-sourced, neutral, placed in the right article, etc. So we take each content proposal as it comes. That is not at all a statement in favor of including trivial matters. Wikidemon (talk) ← Just in case anyone isn't clear about the above claim of "unanimous passage", I don't see that anyone here has agreed to any "proposal" at all, nor do I think it is at all likely that consensus will be reached to institute some new set of rules when the old ones work just fine. Contino, I think it's time to move onto something else. Tvoz/talk 23:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Everyone seems to agree on the proposal, even Grsz11's comment "it's how things always were". Wikidemon says that if it just reinforces things (which it does), then it's not necessary. Now Tvoz seems to express opposition. If this is truly the case, then Tvoz is opposing what everyone else agrees to. This should be a simple, "I agree" or "it seems like the way we have always done things". I'm not sure why there is so much resistance. Unlike what Tvoz said, "the old ones work just fine", doesn't work when we simply re-state it like I did and there is then opposition. Unless Tvoz clarifies, this proposal goes down as an no opposition except for Tvoz. Again, the proposal (paragraph 4) can be summarized as major items should be included, trivial items should not. The most major items have the highest priority. Truly, nobody can be serious if they oppose that. Contino (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC) First of all, you aren't reading for comprehension, everyone DISAGREES with you. Secondly, see WP:NOT, this isn't a democracy. Soxwon (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose Grsz11 00:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose is not clear. Is it opposing Soxwon? If it is opposing my proposal, which is simply a layman's summary of what Wikipedia is all about, then there is some serious disagreement about basic Wikipedia principles. Contino (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Stop it. As everyone who has commented has said, there is no need to restate basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Continuing to pursue this is disruptive, and pointless. Tvoz/talk 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed. This is process for process's sake and not at all fruitful. All of this is already longstanding Wikipedia policy. We don't engage in anything remotely resembling altering or restating said policies for individual articles; they're policies for a reason. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Then now Tvoz seems to agree with Wikipedia principles. Basically, I was stating in layman's terms, "this is what Wikipedia rules seems to be". You can ignore the comment, that's fine. Or you can say "That's true, I agree." I certainly hope you don't say "I oppose these Wikipedia principles" which was what Tvoz originally seemed to say but now says there's no need to restate it but not to discuss this anymore. What should have been just a few lines of uncontroversial text has really mushroomed! I think this is finally settled. Nobody disagrees with what is really just a lay person's re-stating several Wikipedia principles in everyday language. Contino (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

2004 Senate Campaign

Little sparse with respect to Jack Ryan's withdrawal. Didn't he have Obama followed and also have some embarrassing aspects of his behavior made public during a divorce? Ikilled007 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

These are matters for Jack Ryan (politician), and would seem to have no relevance here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and the relevant information is available at the article the section is summarizing here: United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Insulting Text

When I go to the article when not logged in, it says, after his name, "(aka the retard who is screwing up this country)". When I'm logged in, the text disappears. I tried multiple times. What is going on? Zzez1919 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)zzez1919

That's because someone just removed the inappropriate content. Check the article history.Nonamer98 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I did revert it after reading this, so not sure what was going on. CTJF83Talk 19:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's still there for you, you may need to clear your browser cache. Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bold change to lead

Current introduction: 1. Who he is (President) and what he used to be. 2. Education and Illinois Senate 3. Keynote address and Senate committees 4. Close primary campaign with Hillary Clinton, African-American, McCain.

3b (Senate committees) is the most out of place for an introduction. It is not a key point. Other senator articles don't deem committee assignments as a key point for the introduction. A more important point was that Obama ran as an anti-war candidate and was one of the early politicians to do so. Spevw (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrected, nothing controversial added. Very plain language used. Spevw (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor has shortened and refined the lead.[12] I like the change, with the exception of using the word "virtual" to mean "almost". I know there was a deliberate effort to describe Obama's senate career in the lead, but I find the actual list of committees and legislation to be very dry and not terribly informative to someone who is reading the lead for summary purposes. So, preemptively, I like it! Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See, I'm no dummy, my ideas are good. I also am changing it to almost like you suggested. Spevw (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out that calling this a "consensus" edit in edit summary is a stretch - one editor agreed with it, and others might not. I'm not saying necessarily that the edits were bad, but I am saying that major changes to the lead section of an FA on article probation, which has seen much contention, should be done with great care. Waiting for actual consensus to form when the changes are substantive, as these are, would be prudent. Tvoz/talk 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I went over the revised lede and made some changes to it:

• Reinstated "close" for the primaries as "prolonged" has a POV tinge to it (def: "tediously protracted"), whereas "close" is just descriptive.
• Rearranged the paragraph about his Senate run because as it had been amended, the chronology was off - the keynote came before the election and saying he was elected and following that with he was relatively unknown is misleading: he was relatively unknown nationally until giving the keynote in July, and then he was elected in November. Also it had said twice that he was elected, so this modification corrects that.
• I removed the addition of his campaign themes for now - the lede is supposed to summarize the article, and this sentence didn;t seem to summarize what is covered in the article, however accurate the description might be. Also I think this one is too major a change to just slip in.
• I agree with the removal of the second swearing-in - it is a trivial point, not suitable for the lede.
• I agree with the removal of the Senate committees.

My changes were an attempt to reconcile what we had with what was being changed, and think that further major changes to the lede should be discussed, as I said above. Tvoz/talk 08:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz said "I just want to point out that calling this a "consensus" edit in edit summary is a stretch - one editor agreed with it, and others might not. Yet Tvoz changed things without even one editor agreeing to it so there was no consensus. This is not really a technicality because the Barack Obama article has strict rules, article probation, etc. But I think this issue is settled since there is no debate in over a week. Spevw (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Spevw, you made your edit less than an hour after posting here, and without benefit of any discussion - and said "corrected, nothing controversial added" above after you made the edit which was just not true. I reverted some of your changes, as outlined above, because they were in part incorrect - see my comments above about the chronology, for example - it is not ok to leave incorrect or misleading, confusing information in this high-profile article pending discussion. I came here, outlined the changes I made to your edit, and requested input from other editors before further major changes were made. It was your "bold change to the lead", made without consultation, that was outside of the way things are supposed to be done in this article. I probably should have reverted the whole thing, pending discussion, but I was trying to work with what you had, as Scjessey also did in removing your addition of the second swear-in. Wikidemon said he liked it, after you made the edit, but that is not consensus, nor did Wikidemon claim it was - he merely gave his opinion of an edit that you had already made. So your pointing out the rules of editing this article is offbase since you didn't follow them yourself which is what precipitated my and others' cleaning up of your edit. And as for no further debate on the intro, read the rest of the talk page. Unfortunately the floodgates were opened by editing rather than discussing first, and now the wording we have is, in my view, significantly worse than what we had before. I'm hopeful we'll improve it soon. Tvoz/talk 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)