Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Hats

Discussion about closing discussions is closed UnitAnode 01:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I understand now. Hats are used on this page so that consensus will never change. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Sarcasm doesn't usually work well online. Hats are used to close conversations once consensus is established. If you have a particular proposal for an article change, feel free to bring it up (hopefully after reading the FAQ and the current crop of discussions - collapsed and otherwise - which take up nearly 600KB of space).  Frank  |  talk  00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC) No sarcasm, just an observation about this talk page. If there is trolling, it should be removed, and if the FAQ is not being read, the question should be removed and a note placed on the user's talk page. Otherwise, you're simply hiding relevant discussion about the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC) It's how WP works. --Misortie (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC) No, this is the only page I've seen operated this way. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Hats don't do anything. You need a Hab to go with it. Grsz11 01:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC) If I wasn't clear enough, I meant "removed" as in deleted from the page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC) This was about talk page etiquette, please assume good faith. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Closing and archiving of discussions happens all over the place, and is the only reasonable way for non-administrative editors to quickly deal with certain kinds of disruption. For the most part (and ideally), discussions should be archived only if there is consensus for doing so, based on a reasonable sense that any productive discussion is over, there is no legitimate question to answer or active viable matter under discussion that could lead to an improvement in the article, further discussion will be counterproductive, etc). There's probably a guideline or essay on that somewhere. If we take as a starting point that some discussions are going to get archived, the {{hat}} / {{hab}} template is a lot less confrontational than deleting conversations (which ought to be done only in extreme cases of outing, copyright or BLP vios, vandalism, test edits, gibberish, extreme personal attacks, duplicate posts, etc), moving to the archive, or declaring them "closed". If they're hatted nothing is lost, people can still edit them and see them if they want, and if there's a need to re-open it's very easy to do. Also, if people use them right and nothing was going to come out of the discussion, it actually increases the pace of article change because people will focus on things that are a possibility rather than lost causes. Possibly that makes them more tempting to use, and it's a legitimate concern in my opinion that people are too hasty to close conversations, or use it aggressively to deflect things they disagree with content-wise. Anyway, the tool isn't the real problem, it's over-application might be. An even less confrontational thing to do, if someone feels that a conversation has already happened again and again, is simply to move the headings around so that all the conversations on the same topic are grouped together. Or of course the ignore button. Hope that helps! - Wikidemon (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you Wikidemon. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Obamaism?

Looking into what user:William S. Saturn seems to be upset about (above) I ran into Obamaism, a redirect he turned into an article after his AFD nomination for Bushism failed. Is "Obamaism" with this meaning even remotely notable, or is this just WP:POINTy? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be a neologism created by Saturn. The only other references I've found to the word don't seem to be using it in the same way that he is in this POINT-y "article." UnitAnode 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Dealt with. Obvious POINT violation but this user. Grsz¹¹ 01:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, massive facepalm. Once source for an article on Biden, one to a group blog (about.com, one to a Time article, and one to Limbaugh? That should be redirected to the public image article, if anywhere. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the closing of a good faith editor's sincere discussion above was a little hasty, and that the closing has been a little too aggressive. Discussions about closing discussions can be closed, but only after full discussion. Right? Anyway, let's not let all the socks get to us. Is "Obamaism" is a notable neologism? Poking around google, it seems to be widely used, even in a few major neutral third party mainstream sources, although being a silly neologism it's probably going to rattle around among bloggers, editorialists, and comedians for a long while before someone writes about it rather than just using it. "Bushism" reached that threshold only after quite a long while. With good sourcing I'd be prepared to accept it as a notable subject, and keep my mind open for the future if not now. It probably won't be mentioned here for a long time, but I would start with a link from the "public image" article. It sets a funny precedent from now on out, that every president, and in fact every major character, will have a cultural meme about their philosophy / quirks / modes of speech consisting of their name plus the suffix "ism". We'll have Liberman-isms, Tiger Woods-isms, Paris Hilton-isms, Nelson Mandala-isms, on and on. But that's probably subject for a different talk page, no? Just smile when you say it and we'll be fine here. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

discussion went downhill
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note to UnitAnode - although I think this is closable per my original reason, it's now a complete mess due to the sockpuppet. If you must, feel free start a fresh discussion and I will not collapse it. But please, I strongly urge you to take these concerns to a different forum, perhaps starting by discussing things directly with editors on their talk page. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC) While I hate to do this, as during the election I was the one being accused of pro-Obama bias, but I have no other choice. There is a complete rigidity of the "regular editors" (I won't use the "O-word", as some have expressed their outrage at that) of this article to allowing anything resembling critical commentary into this article. Right now, it's so one-sided, when compared with almost any other modern presidential article, that it's making a mockery of the editorial process. While some additions of criticism are trivial, and deserve to be reverted (and I've done so often in the past), this lack of any willingness to work with people attempting to balance the article is unacceptable. UnitAnode 19:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Agree totally, see my talkpage what has done an Obama fan. Bamao (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Request closure and collapse or removal - I'm not going to edit war to re-close this section but it's an inappropriate discussion topic per article probation and attracting sockpuppets so I'd appreciate if someone else would close it. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Why Obama fans close and delete very threads when they run out of arguments? Bamao (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC) The problem is that when the major opposition are ridiculous in their criticism, it becomes hard to take real criticism seriously. Perhaps if the GOP hadn't accused him of being a Socialicommunazislamifascist Kenyan as much as they do, we'd get real criticism interwoven into the article. Sceptre (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Personally, I'm happy to work with other editors, and look past all the off-wiki partisans and Wikipedia trolls and socks to consider biographically pertinent information about Obama, something I think I am doing. I just happen to think that excessive attention to polling data is unhelpful in most any article, that we should honor article probation and its restrictions on using this talk page to accuse other editors of things, and that we should not measure anything on the scale of being pro or anti, but instead whether it is relevant, of due weight, and informs the reader. I closed this thread per that middle point, that we should not be accusing other editors of bad faith here and that we don't need yet another discussion on whether or not this article is a POV OWN-ership battleground. Incidentally and speaking of socks, I've filed a request on WP:AN/I to take a look at Bamao, who seems to be one of our long term puppeteers here. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC) And do you think that the good faith is that you name your every opponent to be sock and run to administrator's board like a good democrat. Bamao (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Okay, Bamao (an anagram of "Obama") is now blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. We're done here. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Opened thread regarding the tag-teaming behavior here

Here is the thread. This tag-teaming the POV tag out, and placing ludicrous "warnings" on my page about edit-warring, when you guys are the ones removing a POV tag without discussion, and accusing me of all manner of WikiSins is just completely beyond the pale of sanity. While I'm sure that notifying you guys of this thread will lead to a dogpile on me there, I felt it was still the right thing to do. If you continue to treat good-faith (for god's sake, I'm a Democrat!) editors in this manner, this page is going to become nothing more than an echo chamber. Perhaps that's what you want, perhaps not. But all you're accomplishing with this type of treatment is chasing good-faith editors away from the page. I'm not the type to radicalize, but what I've experienced today helps me better understand those that have become somewhat radicalized against the "regular editors" of this page. UnitAnode 02:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we please close this thread as inappropriate use of the talk page and instead direct editors to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Obama article probation, where the above editor has just filed a report? I've left Unitanode a final warning to stop disrupting the talk and main pages,[1] and they in turn filed the above-mentioned report.Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Obama article probation.[2] As Unitanode has been cautioned multiple times in the past several hours, this talk page is for discussing proposals to improve the main article and is not the place to air grievances or accusations of bad faith against other editors. Earlier complaints today have stirred up some sockpuppets (see above), and I don't want to risk a repeat of that. There is nothing to discuss on this subject here that would not better be discussed on the article probation page. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It would be about par for the course, and would be in keeping with everything else that has happened today. It would also prove my basic points. UnitAnode 03:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I will not file an FAR --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There needs to be an FA review of this article. Since it is unstable, I don't see how it could pass as featured. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC) From WP:FACR; (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Since the edit dispute in the article concerns a tag, not content, there does not appear to be any valid concern about the featured article status at this time. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC) The tag concerns content. I make no comment on the issue of FAR, but to portray the instability as just about the tag is disingenuous, at best. UnitAnode 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Go ahead and start one. It'll end the same way it has in the past. The normal ebb of a high profile, high traffic article isn't going to be enough to delist. Grsz11 03:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I don't see how it can possibly pass as stable, there are numerous disputes daily. And I don't think the current dispute is over tags but instead opinion polling trends. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Here is a diff representing the change in the article in the past month.[3] I see nothing in there that looks like instability. On what are you basing the claim that the article is unstable? If this has to do with the harsh treatment you received earlier today on this talk page (not saying it is, but just in case), I'm sorry that happened and I think it was unfair. At the same time, there have been at least a couple sockpuppets plaguing the page today, amidst a content / behavioral dispute that is now on the probation page - so things have been chaotic and a little testy with editors responding to that and people caught in the editorial crossfire. If there is any specific problem you see with the article in its current state, or edit to propose, please go right ahead and I hope we can all pay serious attention. It may be the case that the article has deteriorated since the last full FAR, which was more than a year ago, with a couple brief ones in March. The outcome to the last few requests, made during a period of vastly more active disputes on the talk page, was that a few minor problems were noted and fixed but that claims of bias and instability were not found. Hope that helps, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC) re WSS: Obama is one of the most famous people in the world; of course there are going to be talk page disputes. However, the amount of article-editing disputes is surprisingly low, even for an article of such high visibility. Sceptre (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Ok, I will not open an FAR, it probably wouldn't accomplish anything. Thanks.

Quick citation needed...

Accomplished --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...for Obama being the first President born in Hawaii. Pretty obvious, as he was the first president born after Hawaii's statehood, but it still may need citing. Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Gauthier, Marc (September 30, 2009). "Column:How badly does America need the 2016 Olympics". The Daily Campus. College Media Network. Retrieved 31 December 2009. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, an issue with the article we can all agree on.

This article needs a bit of copyediting. The prose appears sloppy in some places, with small paragraphs and extraneous words. Are we going to fix it ourselves or ask the Guild of Copyeditors to help? If we're doing it, it would be helpful to read Tony1's guide to improving prose. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• My last several edits were intended as just that. I'm hoping they stick, as (in addition to my other, more serious, concerns) there is definitely some cleanup work to be done. I know that SlimVirgin is good at these kind of things as well, if someone wants to ping her about it. UnitAnode 05:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article.

I have started this RFC to avoid the back and forth editing over the use of the phrase "Rising star" in the article. The issue, as I see it, depends on two conflicting ideas, and I am not sure what the appropriate way to handle this is. Here, from my take, are the two ideas that are the source of the conflict:

• Wikipedia:Featured article criteria mandates that a featured article is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
• It is also important that Wikipedia article faithfully represent the information in the source material they cite.

So here is the crux of the problem. The source article, which is from a reliable source, uses the phrase "rising star". The idea that is trying to be expressed here is not under dispute. He was clearly a "rising star" in the sense of having a meteoric rise in popularity and importance due to his democratic senate primary win in 2004. The fact that such a rise in popularity and importance occured is not under dispute at all. Such an occurance is well documented in reliable source, and as such, it should most certainly have a prominent place in the article. The fact is a very important one, and should not be minimized or marginalized in any way. The problem is that the term "rising star" is slang, it does not represent writing which is "brilliant, and of a professional standard" as should be expected of an encylopedia article. The source material uses the phrase, but there must be some way that we can capture the concept while using language which is appropriate to the encyclopedic nature of this article. This RFC is intentionally being narrowly defined as how to deal with the phrase "rising star" from linguistic point of view. This is not an open debate over Obama's politics or importance or anything else. I just want to know how should we faithfully represent the source material without resorting to using the same slang that the source material uses. --Jayron32 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Put it in quotes "rising star" to indicate it is the wording of the source, and not a product of the article prose/style? Tarc (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a novel idea, but rather self-evident once you put it like that. What about taking it a step further. Why not do something like this:

"His landslide win in the Democratic Party primary during the 2004 Illinois Senate race, caused USA Today to call him a "rising star" in the Democratic Party."[4]

Such phrasing would maintain the integrity of the source material, but also make it clear that Wikipedia is repeating the use of slang in another source; such direct quoting would seem to be a reasonable solution to the problem, since it attributes the informal tone to the source material, rather than leaving it as part of the article. That seems a very reasonable solution. I think as long as we both directly quote the phrase, and directly name the source in the article, it solves the problem. What does anyone else think? --Jayron32 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes to much sense and would end this matter. Where is the drama in that :) j/k. Nice logical suggestion :) --Tom (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Well done. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good. Grsz¹¹ 21:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, looks good and keeps to the source. Brothejr (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the informal phrase "rising star" is used, it should be used as a direct quote to a source. However, I would prefer to avoid the informality of that term altogether, and provide a more encyclopedic wording of the same concept. There are occasionally catch phrases that become closely identified with a biographical subject, and are used by many sources. For example, Reagan as "the Teflon president" might ascend to this, or "Friend of Bill [Clinton]" might. Both of those are informal, but have become almost tropes, and might be mentioned as such. The term "rising star" is used much more generically, with little specific affinity to Obama; he has been described that way in many sources, but many other politicians have also been so described. Hence there is no special reason to insist on the informality for this article. LotLE×talk 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This RfC—based on Jayron32's unsubstantiated personal opinion that "rising star" is "slang"—is unfounded. The proposal to use scare quotes and attribute the description "rising star" to only a March 18, 2004 USA Today article—one of multiple, authoritative, cited sources for the description—is unneeded, inappropriate and unacceptable. Newross (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rising star

1. Jayron32's October 21, 2009 edit removing this sentence added to the lede six months ago by QueenofBattle:

   His prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party.

   is an improvement in accuracy—his U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory in March 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party; being a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party led to his selection to give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.
2. Unitanode's October 21, 2009 edit removing "as a star" from this 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection sentence revised eight months ago by Happyme22:

   a combined 9.1 million viewers saw Obama's speech, which was a highlight of the convention and elevated his status as a star in the Democratic Party.

   left it three words shorter.
3. Unitanode's October 21, 2009 edit removing "rising star" from this 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection sentence revised seven months ago by me (Newross):

   In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

   and rewriting it to say:

   In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which raised his prominence within in the national Democratic Party almost overnight, and started speculation about a presidential future.

   left it awkward, inaccurate and unfaithful to the cited sources.

The noun "rising star" is:

• not a WP:Peacock term, as claimed by Jayron32 and Unitanode
• not Way too biased, as claimed by 67.60.50.5
• not slang, as claimed with no substantiation by Jayron32 using silly comparisons to actual slang phrases like "cool dude" and "the bitchinest cat on the block"
• not a colloquialism or "informal English", as claimed with no substantiation by Jayron32
• not found in reference works like:

  Cassell's dictionary of slang
  Informal English : puncture ladies, egg harbors, Mississippi marbles, and other curious words and phrases
  McGraw-Hill's dictionary of American slang and colloquial expressions
  NTC's dictionary of American slang and colloquial expressions
  The Oxford dictionary of modern slang
  The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English
  Slang! : the topical dictionary of Americanisms
  Stone the crows : Oxford dictionary of modern slang
  etc.

• according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 242 years old and defined as:

  a person or thing that is growing quickly in popularity or importance in a particular field <a rising star in politics>

• used in professionally written newspaper news articles over the last quarter century about the selection of these Democratic and Republican National Convention keynote speakers:

  Mario Cuomo (1984), Ann Richards (1988), Thomas Kean (1988), Bill Bradley (1992), Phil Gramm (1992), Evan Bayh (1996), Susan Molinari (1996), Harold Ford, Jr. (2000), Barack Obama (2004), Mark Warner (2008).

• used in professionally written Encyclopædia Britannica articles about:

  politicians Eric Cantor, Brian Joseph Lenihan, Peter Mandelson, George Osborne, Najib Abdul Razak
  physicist Enrico Fermi
  History of Central Asia - The Middle Ages - The Mongol epoch - Mongol rule (Timur)
  Japan - Domestic Affairs (Book of the Year 2001)
  The U.S. 2002 Midterm Elections (Book of the Year 2002)
  Germany - Government and Politics (Book of the Year 2003)
  The U.S. Election of 2004 (Book of the Year 2004)
  etc.

The noun "star" is:

• according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, over eight centuries old and defined as:

  5a : the principal member of a theatrical or operatic company who usually plays the chief roles
  5b : a highly publicized theatrical or motion-picture performer
  5c : an outstandingly talented performer <a track star>
  5d : a person who is preeminent in a particular field

• used once in the professionally written Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama

  (which is one-fourth the length of this amateurishly written Wikipedia article about Barack Obama)

These U.S. and international newspaper, newsmagazine, news service, and television and radio news networks reported that Barack Obama was a "rising star" in the national Democratic Party after his March 17, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory and before his July 27, 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address:

1. The Boston Globe
2. Chicago Sun-Times
3. Chicago Tribune
4. Christian Science Monitor
5. Daily Herald (Arlington Heights)
6. International Herald Tribune
7. The New York Times
8. Newsweek
9. Peoria Journal Star
10. The Philadelphia Inquirer
11. South Florida Sun-Sentinel
12. St. Petersburg Times
13. USA Today
14. The Wall Street Journal
15. The Washington Post
16. The Washington Times
17. Daily Nation
18. The Globe and Mail
19. The Independent
20. Associated Press
21. Newhouse News Service
22. ABC News
23. CBS News
24. NBC News
25. CNN
26. MSNBC
27. PBS
28. NPR
    etc.

in professionally written news articles such as:

1. Tilove, Jonathan (Newhouse News Service) (March 18, 2004). "Barack Obama: black Senate candidate a rising star." Mobile Register, p. A6.
2. Howlett, Debbie (March 18, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate". USA Today.
3. Harwood, John. (March 31, 2004). "Presidential politics overshadows rise of state-level stars." The Wall Street Journal, p. A4.
4. Romano, Lois (April 10, 2004). "Kerry sprinkles jobs message with attacks on Iraq policy." The Washington Post, p. A4.
5. Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). "Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7.
6. Kelley, Kevin (April 13, 2004). "Obama ahead in US Senate race." Daily Nation.
7. Kuhnhenn, James (May 24, 2004). "With seven retirements, control of Senate is at stake in election." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A02.
8. Kinzer, Stephen (June 26, 2004). "Candidate, under pressure, quits Senate race in Illinois." The New York Times, p. A8.
9. Schoenburg, Bernard (June 26, 2004). "Ryan quits Senate race; state GOP braces for a tough fight against popular Democrat." Peoria Journal Star, p. A1.
10. Mendell, David (July 7, 2004). "Fundraising has set record, Obama says; $4 million raked in in the last quarter." Chicago Tribune, p. 1 (Metro).
11. Healy, Patrick (July 13, 2004). "Kerry hones campaign themes; with the big event two weeks away, picks up pace, cash." The Boston Globe, p. A3.
12. Sweet, Lynn (July 14, 2004). "Dems plan to showcase Obama, Reagan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 26.
13. Zuckerman, Jill; Mendell, David (July 15, 2004). "Obama to give keynote address." Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
14. Krol, Eric (July 15, 2004). "Convention spotlight to shine on Obama." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights), p. 15
15. Gibson, William E. (July 18, 2004). "Parties prep for prime time, but networks cut coverage of conventions." South Florida Sun-Sentinel, p. 1A.
16. Miller, Steve (July 21, 2004). "Ryan hangs on to Illinois ballot; delay in withdrawal worries GOP, blocks new candidates." The Washington Times, p. A04.
17. Lannan, Maura Kelley (Associated Press) (July 22, 2004). "Times get tougher for Ill. GOP; in the land of Lincoln, one Senate candidate dropped out, and replacements aren't jumping in." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A03.
18. Wills, Christopher (Associated Press) (July 25, 2004). "Ready to take his place on national stage; Democrats' rising star will give speech at convention." The Herald-Sun (Durham, North Carolina), p. A5.
19. Zeller Jr., Tom; Truslow, Hugh K. (July 25, 2004). "Democrats, lend me your ears." The New York Times, p. 12 (Week in Review).
20. Smith, Adam C. (July 25, 2004). "The true Kerry may emerge in Boston." St. Petersburg Times, p. 1A.
21. Brackett, Ron (July 25, 2004). "The Parties' big parties." St. Petersburg Times, p. 10A.
22. Knowlton, Brian (July 26, 2004). "Convention themes aim for the center; Democrats in Boston." International Herald Tribune, p. 1.
23. . (August 2, 2004). "Star Power. Showtime: some are on the rise; others have long been fixtures in the firmament. A galaxy of bright Democratic lights." Newsweek, pp. 48–51.
24. Milligan, Susan (July 27, 2004). "In Obama, Democrats see their future". The Boston Globe, p. B8.
25. Paulson, Amanda (July 27, 2004). "Showcasing a coterie of new Democratic stars." Christian Science Monitor, p. 10.
26. McCarthy, Shawn (July 27, 2004). "Minorities looking for gains in battle for the presidency; support seen as critical in key states." The Globe and Mail, p. A3.
27. Cornwell, Rupert (July 27, 2004). "Democratic Convention: an unknown rookie, but can Obama be first black president?" The Independent (London), p. 5.
28. Merzer, Martin; McCaffrey, Shannon (July 27, 2004). "Looking ahead with eye on past." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A01.
29. Chancellor, Carl (July 27, 2004). "A rising star gets a key role tonight; Barack Obama, the keynote speaker, already has proven he can reach across societal divides and win support." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A10.
30. Wertheimer, Linda (July 27, 2004). "Obama to rise to stage in Boston." Morning Edition, NPR
31. Brackett, Elizabeth (July 27, 2004). "Rising star." The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS
    etc.

The cited March 18, 2004 New York Times and USA Today news articles and the two chapters (pages 235–259)—about the period between Obama's March 17, 2004 landslide U.S. Senate primary election and his July 27, 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address—in the David Mendell (author of the Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama) book Obama: From Promise to Power should be sufficient WP:Reliable sources to support this amateurishly written Wikipedia article's sentence:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't think you are going to win any arguements here by continuing to refer to Wikipedia in such derogatory terms as an "amateurishly" written article. You seem to be missing the very basics of Wikipedia, namely that it is an encyclopedia written not by professionals, but rather by everyday folk. Also, there seems to be little need for the chronology of the sentence's edits, including identifying specific editors, as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. No one owns their individual contibutions. Lastly, haven't we already reached consensus on this?? QueenofBattle (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion to be incredibly shallow and unnecessary. For Christ’s sake, It’s just wording. It’s laughable.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. By amateurishly-written vs. professionally-written, I meant written-by-everyday-folk vs. written-by-professional-writers.
   I did not mean to disparage the hard work of editors who have made positive contributions to this article—many of whom have been driven away by its pervasively hostile and unpleasant editing environment.
   This article meets many featured article criteria and is not poorly written, but its strength has never been criteria 1(a): that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
   My point was that an accurate, reliably sourced term that is not slang, not a colloquialism , not informal language, and is used in professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles, should not be excluded from use in this written-by-everyday-folk encyclopedia article.
2. I noted when the changed sentences were last revised—6 months, 8 months, and 7 months ago—to show that the sentences had been stable.
   I noted who had last revised the changed sentences to show why they might be concerned about the changes.
   I agree that editors do not own their Wikipedia contributions, but it is not unreasonable for an editor who has endeavored to find the best available references and carefully word a sentence to accurately reflect those references, would take issue with casual changes to it made for bogus reasons (e.g. claiming—based on unsubstantiated personal opinion—that "rising star" is "way to biased", or a peacock term, or slang, or a colloquialism , or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles).
3. No, we haven't already reached consensus on this.

Newross (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Very brief reply

You appeal to authority, citing David Mendell, author of the EB article on Pres. Obama, as someone who used that phrase. Yet, you fail to mention that the article he wrote doesn't actually use the phrase. Do you care to comment a to why you think that might be? We are not a news outlet, a radio talk program, or any of the other sources you cite. That these sources call him that allows us to quote them calling him that, but to call him that in an encyclopedia article seems PEACOCK-y, and not just to me. There are others here who agree that if we use the term, it needs to be in quoting a source, and even Mullen himself didn't put that in the EB article, at all. UA 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I was appealing to evidence that ten Encyclopædia Britannica articles using the term "rising star" to describe politicians demonstrates that it is used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles and is not informal English.
2. I did not say David Mendell used the term "rising star" in his Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama; I said he used the word "star" once in his Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama.
3. I cited chapters 17, 18, and 19 (pages 235–271) from David Mendell's book Obama: From Promise to Power as one of four sources for the sentence:

   In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

   because it is good source and refers to "his rising star" (on page 247) and being "a rising star" (on page 268).

Newross (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to say, I concur completely with Newross on the linguistic and encyclopedic appropriateness issues. The very section we are currently writing/reading was titled "RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article". On that basis several editors weighed in with support of removing the term, and in doing so repeated or expounded on the misnomers "slang" and "informal language". Yet the term in question, rising star, is neither slang nor informal language, and this fact presumably comes as a surprise to those editors who have thus far weighed in. (Making it more surprising when someone claims a consensus has already been reached—on the basis of a collective misunderstanding that has already come to light?!) It seems to me that, at a certain point in time, the fact that Barack Obama was a "rising star" was the argument against him as much as it was the argument for him, so peacockery is an odd complaint now.

Jimmy Carter was anything but a rising star in the party in the years prior to his presidential run, with the popular response being "Jimmy who?" Richard Nixon, on the other hand, was so far from being a rising star as to be thought of as yesterday's news—"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore". That some people are and others are not rising stars is neither an irrelevant nor a superficial aspect of their path to the White House. I don't see what the problem is with noting that here, given the plethora of reliable sources Newross points out for the term's application to Obama dating to that period of several months alone, that Obama was in fact a rising star.

Where I differ from Newross, however, is the time period for which the term is most appropriately used. Election to the state senate doesn't make you a rising star, it makes you a state senator—one of more than a thousand otherwise anonymous state senators in the country—unless you distinguish yourself otherwise and/or fate or a recognition of your potential results in other doors opening for you. Obama's true rising star period—and the one worth acknowledging in the lead—revolves around his address to the convention, beginning with the second two-thirds of the refs Newross gives, which are about him being picked to give that convention address and not actually about his state senate win—and reverberating across the country with the national press coverage and increased name recognition afterward. It was his fame (and comportment, eloquence and compelling story, etc.) in this period, and not in the pre- and post-state senate win period—that allowed for his swift progression to U.S. senator two years later and president two years after that, a rather swift and biographically quite remarkable ascendancy. (Is a singer, for example, a rising star the moment a local showcase draws the attention of a big-time agent and manager and record company, or at the moment they make their national debut?) Did dozens of local and national media and Dem party people see Obama's potential earlier? Certainly. Is that the part of Obama's rising star status that bears being singled out in the lead? I would argue that it is not. Had Obama not been picked to give the convention speech—or had he fumbled it miserably—his star might well have been limited to that of big fish in the Illinois pond, at least for a few more years. Had Obama won the primary but merely came in a strong second in the general for the state senate, I'm guessing he would've been encouraged from inside and outside the party to run for U.S. Senate anyway, allowing for continued ascendancy. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and setting a course or breaking a stasis may be the most significant point from the standpoint of the individual, but from the standpoint of the journey—the bio—the "rising" part within the party comes in the shift from a local to a national stage. To give more emphasis on star status in the national party to the state senate win specifically than we do on the convention speech, from pick to delivery to reaction, is I hope an obvious mistake, and I reiterate that Newross' own refs seem to support that.

To the initiator of the RfC, Jayron32, then, from "the linguistic point of view", there is no basis to object to the use of the term, free from quotes or textual attribution, in the manner that QueenofBattle added it (as the result of discussion at the time, if I recall correctly), and the way to deal with it is to restore it as it has stood these past six months (or in some improved way), linked to the period surrounding his convention speech, and not to his state senate win. Abrazame (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC Restricting my commentary to the nature of the language of "rising star," I think Newross' research on this point is conclusive, and it can be used without scare quotes in the narrative voice of the article. Ray^Talk 16:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to RFC The term "rising star" is widely used in several fields, it clearly applies here, it has and can be used in professional writing, it is engaging. Thus, it is fine for use in this article without quotes or in-text attribution. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Belated reply to RFC I have to agree with Newross, Ray, Wasted Time R and any others I might have missed - the term "rising star" is completely appropriate for this article. Tvoz/talk 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses.
I don't quite understand Abrazame's references to Obama's election to the state Senate.
No one said his elections to the state Senate (in 1996, 1998, and 2002) made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party in 2004.

• I am not recommending using "rising star" in the lede, which per WP:LEADCITE is a summary of the article and does not cite any references.
• I am saying that in the 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection of this article, "rising star" is the best and most historically accurate description of Obama's status in the national Democratic Party the morning after his March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory—as reported in the cited references: David Mendell's 2007 book Obama: From Promise to Power and in contemporaneous news articles "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born" in The New York Times and "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate" in USA Today.
• Obama's status as a rising star in the national Democratic Party and the favorite to win an important Republican-held U.S. Senate seat (the U.S. Senate was then narrowly divided with a 51-49 Republican majority), landed him on the Kerry campaign's short list of potential Democratic National Convention keynote speakers along with several Democratic governors from swing states: first-term Governors Jennifer Granholm, 45, of Michigan; Janet Napolitano, 46, of Arizona; Mark Warner, 49, of Virginia; Bill Richardson, 56, of New Mexico; and second-term Governor Tom Vilsack, 53, of Iowa.
• Kerry selected Obama as keynote speaker after being impressed by Obama while campaigning with him in Chicago on April 8–9, 2004[5] and again on June 29, 2004,[6][7]—four days after E. J. Dionne's Washington Post column "In Illinois, a star prepares" and the withdrawal of Obama's Republican opponent Jack Ryan,[8][9]—and one day after the July 5, 2004 issue of Time magazine hit the newsstands with a large color picture of Obama accompanying the two-page article "Dreaming about the Senate" on pages 34–35, followed on page 36 by the article "Leaving blacks cold" about the Kerry campaign's tepid support by blacks. On July 2, 2004, the Kerry campaign informed Obama that they had chosen him to be the DNC keynote speaker.
• After the Illinois Senate adjourned at 8:13 pm CDT on Saturday, July 24, 2004, Obama flew from Springfield, Illinois to Boston to appear on three of the five television network news Sunday morning talk shows.
  • As the lead guest on Tim Russert's Meet the Press on NBC, Russert's second question to Obama was about Ryan Lizza's Atlantic Monthly article "The Natural. Why is Barack Obama generating more excitement among Democrats than John Kerry?"[10]
  • As the lead guest on Bob Schieffer's Face the Nation on CBS, the show began with:[11]

    SCHIEFFER: So we'll ask our guests, Senator Obama, and we must say Senator Obama is now being talked about as being kind of a rock star of Democratic politics. He's run a sensational race for the Democratic nomination for the Senate out here. And he has been chosen to give the keynote address. Do you feel any pressure?

Newross (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The last I'll say about this is, I thought we were writing an encyclopedia article, not a magazine article. If one person in this discussion can cite even one example of an encyclopedia article using such a term without it being a direct quote from a source, I'll completely cede the point. I don't think you'll find such an article, because that doesn't sound like encyclopedic language. UA 02:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO using a metaphor such as "landslide victory" doesn't seem encyclopedic either. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Newross, I acknowledge that the rising of Obama's star notably includes his primary and electoral wins. But as I pointed out, 2/3 of your usage references in your main post here are actually from the time after he was chosen in July to give the DNC keynote speech. Even in your response most recently above, your quoting of questions dated to July 25 and reference of then-yet-unpublished articles support my assertion, not your own, as of course the velocity of the rise in his "rock star" status had just been given the turbo boost of its first national evidence: the gathering decision and ultimate choice in July as the convention's keynote speaker. That trajectory would not have been spoken of so frequently in that period if Kerry had chosen Bill Richardson or Tom Vilsack, as you note having been on his short list, to give the keynote instead of Obama, and Obama had not had that opportunity to take the national stage.

I do have that timeline straight. My apologies for condensing the broader election cycle timeline in my statement—his progression to U.S. senator was a few months later, not two years later. Indeed, there are only 100 actively serving U.S. senators at a given moment, unlike the thousand-plus state senators; there are two major party nominees for each seat that is up, so that particular point of mine is diluted though not nullified. I also take your point that you are speaking about the article, not the lead, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand corrected on both points.

Obviously he was everything he was in either timeframe, and obviously the leap in going from state senator to U.S. senator is automatically a hugely significant one in notability, national relevancy and "stardom", so it's not that I'm disagreeing with you or your refs, nor would I object to the usage of the term where you suggest, I simply think it's more appropriate (and, again, supported by the refs) for the period a few months later, represented by the following paragraph in the bio, where it originally had been.

To Unitanode and Gordon Ecker (and Newross), and most relevant to the question posed in this RfC, am I also mistaken that Newross has correctly cited the Encyclopædia Brittanica as using the term "rising star"? After the two supportive replies following my post, the most recent two posts here completely ignore the bulk of Newross' statements above. Do the Encyclopædia Britannica articles of which Newross speaks cite quotes by others rather than using the language themselves? Could we get quotes featuring a couple of those usages to help us clarify the encyclopedic issue and make/revise our decisions here? Abrazame (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Obama's March 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party—as reported by news articles from March 17, 2004 to July 14, 2004.
• Obama being a rising star in the national Democratic Party led to his selection as Democratic National Convention keynote speaker—as reported by news articles from July 15, 2004 to July 27, 2004.
• If Obama had not been selected as DNC keynote speaker, the Atlantic Monthly would still have published Ryan Lizza's article "The Natural. Why is Barack Obama generating more excitement among Democrats than John Kerry?" (which does not mention the Democratic National Convention nor Obama's selection as its keynote speaker) on the first day of the Democratic National Convention on July 26, 2004.
• If Obama had not been selected as DNC keynote speaker, then like the other rising stars on the short list to be keynote speaker but who were not selected, he would have had another prime-time speaking role at the convention.
• If Jennifer Granholm had been selected as DNC keynote speaker over Obama instead of vice versa, Obama may have only appeared on one of five television network news Sunday morning talk shows (e.g. Bob Schieffer's Face the Nation on CBS).[12]
• Being selected as the keynote speaker of a national political party convention is an honor, but it doesn't make someone a political "rock star" if they are not already at least "rock star-esque":
  • Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). "Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7:

    Vying to become only the third African American elected to the U.S. Senate in the last 100 years, Obama has enjoyed mostly positive media coverage since his victory, with party leaders and pundits invariably dubbing him "a rising star." Last week, a CNN reporter dubbed Obama a "rock star-esque candidate."

Some professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles using the term "rising star":

• "Abu Abbas." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Abbas grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and, under the nom de guerre Abu Abbas, became a rising star in Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command, which was known for its daring, ruthless, and frequently disastrous attacks on Israel.

• "Jerry Bailey." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Bailey enjoyed considerable success around the country prior to establishing his presence as a rising star on the New York state circuit in 1982.

• "Anne Bracegirdle." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Bracegirdle retired at the height of her career, about 1707, when she began to be eclipsed by the rising star of Anne Oldfield.

• "Eric Cantor." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  After his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Cantor was considered a rising star among House Republicans; he became chief deputy whip of the Republican caucus after only two years.

• "history of Central Asia." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Furthermore, instead of seeking the assistance of petty eastern European princes, Tokhtamysh hitched his wagon to the rising star of Timur, with whose support he reasserted Mongol supremacy in Russia.

• "John Zachary DeLorean." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  A rising star in the automotive industry, DeLorean helped to revitalize Packard before leaving in 1956 to join General Motors.

• "Enrico Fermi." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  In 1929 Fermi, as Italy's first professor of theoretical physics and a rising star in European science, was named by Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini to his new Accademia d'Italia, a position that included a substantial salary (much larger than that for any ordinary university position), a uniform, and a title (“Excellency”).

• "Cathy Freeman." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Cathy Freeman's silver medal in the 400-metre run at the 1996 Games in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., introduced this rising star from Australia to the Olympic world.

• "Neil Gaiman." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  The work established them as rising stars in the comic world, and soon the two were noticed by publishers on both sides of the Atlantic.

• "Jan Lechoń." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Lechon was considered a rising star of new Polish poetry.

• "Brian Joseph Lenihan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Well regarded for his affable manner, he was seen as one of the rising stars of the Fianna Fail party, along with his ally Charles Haughey--later prime minister--whom he succeeded as minister of justice in 1964.

• "Peter Mandelson." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  He promoted Kinnock’s modernization agenda and ensured high media profiles for some of Labour’s rising stars, then in their 30s, such as Blair and Brown.

• "George Osborne." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Osborne entered Parliament in 2001, and he was quickly seen as a rising star.

  * "Najib Abdul Razak." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Early in his parliamentary career, Najib Razak smoothed relations between the government and the hereditary ruling class in the Pahang region, and he was seen as one of the rising stars within the United Malays National Organization (UMNO).

• "Rick Rubin." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  After hearing “It’s Yours,” Russell Simmons, who was already a rising star in the hip-hop scene, joined Rubin at Def Jam.

• "The U.S. 2002 Midterm Elections." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  At one point Republicans appeared poised to replace a rising Democratic star, Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who was admonished by his Senate colleagues following an ethics investigation into his campaign contributions and acceptance of personal gifts.

Re: landslide victory

• Multiple contemporaneous news articles described Obama's March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election win as a "landslide victory":
  • Fornek, Scott; Herguth, Robert C. (March 17, 2004). "Obama defeats Hull's millions, Hynes' name; Consistent effort results in landslide for Hyde Parker." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2:

    Maybe it wasn't such a bad ballot name after all. Barack Obama, who went from Hawaii to Harvard to Hyde Park, won a landslide victory in the Democratic primary Tuesday, bringing him one step closer to becoming the only African American in the U.S. Senate.

  • Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state." Chicago Tribune, p. 1:

    Barack Obama, an African-American state senator and former civil-rights lawyer from Hyde Park, won a landslide victory over six competitors Tuesday to assume the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, setting the stage for a crucial contest in November that could tip the balance of power in Congress. Obama, 42, whose initial campaign strategy was to build a coalition of blacks and liberal whites, instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party. He won over not only urban black voters, but also many suburban whites. With 89 percent of precincts reporting around the state, Obama led his next closest rival, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, by 54 percent of the vote to 23 percent, as expected strong support for Hynes from Chicago's Democratic machine failed to materialize.

  • Moe, Doug (March 18, 2004). "Tommy and Co. disliked paper." The Capital Times, p. 2A:

    Barack Obama, who won a landslide victory in Tuesday's Democratic U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, is "of counsel" with the law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland, which has offices in Chicago and Madison. Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and a highly-sought-after attorney upon graduating. He picked the Miner, Barnhill and Galland firm because of its strong reputation as a civil rights firm. "A spectacular guy," Chuck Barnhill said Wednesday of Obama, who, if elected, would be the third black ever to serve in the U.S. Senate. One of the others, Carol Moseley Braun, also was an attorney with the Miner, Barnhill firm.

  • Fornek, Scott (March 18, 2004). "Obama's appeal spans racial lines; Dem Senate candidate built diverse coalition on universal issues." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 9:

    He ran television commercials featuring images of white and black Democratic icons—from the late Sen. Paul Simon to the late Mayor Harold Washington. He built a coalition that spanned racial, ethnic and religious lines. He talked about issues with universal appeal to Democrats—from his opposition to the war in Iraq to his call to repeal President Bush's tax cuts. And he embraced his African-American heritage while reaching out to all voters. Those were the building blocks of Barack Obama s landslide victory in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. But the foundation was the candidate himself. The product of a racially mixed marriage, he had a stellar resume that includes a Harvard education, years of community activism and experience as a state senator from Hyde Park, factors that contributed to his ability to win votes across racial lines.

  • Polansek, Tom (March 18, 2004). "No rest for the winners; Obama, Ryan hit campaign trail after primary wins." The State Journal-Register, p. 7:

    In Tuesday's Democratic primary, Obama won a landslide victory with 53 percent of the vote in a field of seven candidates. On the Republican side, Ryan won 36 percent of the vote in an eight-way race.

  • Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. 4A:

    Three weeks ago, state Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be an also-ran among the eight Democrats running in Illinois for the nomination to an open U.S. Senate seat. Today, three days after his landslide victory in that crowded field, the self-described "skinny guy with the funny name" is the odds-on favorite to win in November and become the only African-American in the Senate and only the third black senator since Reconstruction. Partisans in Washington consider him a shooting star in the November elections. A few whisper about a presidential future.

  • Polansek, Tom (May 3, 2004). "Winning strategies differ among black politicians." The State Journal-Register, p. 1:

    Days after Barack Obama won a landslide victory in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, former Gov. Jim Edgar said skin color had ceased to be an issue in Illinois politics. Obama, an African-American state senator from Chicago, ran strong in white areas and beat opponent Dan Hynes in Hynes' own Chicago ward.

• The noun "landslide" is:
  • according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 171 years old and defined as:

    2a : a great majority of votes for one side
    2b : an overwhelming victory

• The term "landslide victory" is used in many professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles, including:
  • "Calvin Coolidge." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Running on the slogan “Keep Cool with Coolidge,” he won a landslide victory over conservative Democrat John W. Davis and Progressive Party candidate Robert La Follette, gaining about 54 percent of the popular vote to Davis's 29 percent and La Follette's nearly 17 percent; in the electoral college Coolidge received 382 votes to Davis's 136 and La Follette's 13.

  • "Dwight D. Eisenhower." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Democrats again selected Adlai E. Stevenson and named Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee as his running mate, but Eisenhower's great personal popularity turned the election into a landslide victory, the most one-sided race since 1936, as the Republican ticket garnered more than 57 percent of the popular vote and won the electoral vote 457 to 73.

  • "Indian National Congress." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Nevertheless, her New Congress Party scored a landslide victory in the 1971 elections, and for a period it was unclear which party was the true rightful heir of the Indian National Congress label.
    
    In the parliamentary elections held in March 1977, the opposition Janata Party scored a landslide victory over the Congress Party, winning 295 seats in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of India's Parliament) against 153 for the Congress; Gandhi herself lost to her Janata opponent.

  • "Labour Party." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    This “New Labour” agenda, combined with highly professionalized political marketing, produced a landslide victory in the general election of 1997, returning Labour to power after 18 years of Conservative Party rule and securing Tony Blair's appointment as prime minister.
    
    In 2001 the party won a second consecutive landslide victory, capturing a 167-seat majority—the largest-ever second-term majority for any party in the House of Commons.

  • "Richard M. Nixon." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Renominated with Agnew in 1972, Nixon defeated his Democratic challenger, liberal Sen. George S. McGovern, in one of the largest landslide victories in the history of American presidential elections: 46.7 million to 28.9 million in the popular vote and 520 to 17 in the electoral vote.

  • "Scotland." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    After Labour won a landslide victory in the general elections of May 1997—in which the Conservatives lost all their Scottish seats and the SNP took 6 seats in Parliament—the Labour government of Tony Blair called a referendum for establishing a Scottish Parliament with a broad range of powers, including control over the country's education and health systems.

  • "Margaret Thatcher." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Thatcher won election to a second term in a landslide—the biggest victory since Labour's great success in 1945—gaining a parliamentary majority of 144 with just over 42 percent of the vote.

Newross (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored longstanding sentence with historically accurate description from multiple cited authoritative contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And, I have undone it. You surely have the most words here about this subject, but you are the only one who feels the wording "rising start" is appropriate. The clear consensus is to leave the wording as it is, which is what my reversion has restored. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no clear consensus or justification whatsover for YOUR revert. Newross (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean other than all the discussion above?! I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about this; it's plain to see that you are the only one toting this wagon. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, several editors responded to the RFC in support of the wording "rising star". Tvoz/talk 03:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, both QueenofBattle and Newross are incorrect. Newross has clearly (and amply) presented the basis for "rising star" as encyclopedically appropriate wording, whether anybody wishes to acknowledge it or not. However, the longstanding use of the term in the article, as I indicated and defended as most appropriate, was in reference to his keynote address, and not where Newross has added it at the primary win. I realize there has been a lot of verbiage involved in this discussion but editors are quick to dismiss one or two points, as QueenofBattle's post of 25 October shows. I'm quite disappointed that nobody has weighed in on this since the most recent (1 November) spate of Newross' thorough research. When an editor so fully throws himself into tracking down watertight evidence supporting usage, etc., it should not simply go ignored for weeks. I would request that my own points also be adequately responded to. Abrazame (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should try to use more formal, less poetic language when it is practical. I'll bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On balance I would go with "landslide" but try to find more formal and precise ways to say "rising star" and "overnight". Though a metaphor, landslide is specialized and widely used term with respect to election results, and there is no better way to say it as far as I know. "Rising star" is almost always used imprecisely, and begs the question of what they are a star of. I'm surprised that Encyclopedia Brittanica uses it outside of the entertainment field (music, films, and perhaps sports) where it does serve as a specialized term. It can probably be said more precisely, e.g. that Obama was perceived within the Democratic Party as a viable / attractive future candidate for high office. "Overnight" is usually hyperbole should only be used if literally true; otherwise we should be more specific, e.g. "in the next several days" or "by the end of the week", etc. But even if true it sounds like hyperbole and we should use a term that makes it clear we mean it, e.g. "by the next morning". We source facts to reliable sources, not necessarily word choice and tone. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rising star which I have never considered to be slang. Newross's evidence clearly shows that this is true. The current version (using prominence) is incredibly awkward, and, as mentioned above, doesn't keep the integrity of the sourced material. Deserted Cities (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that it's informal speech that uses a metaphor that doesn't describe the situation completely or squarely - not that it's slang as such. A star is a stellar object in the night sky; a "rising star" by extension is a metaphor for something that, having appeared faintly on the horizon thereafter rises and thereby become more visible. In common speech a star is a person who has gained fame and adoration, not necessarily respect or power, among a wide part of the populace - without respect to their reputation among experts or insiders. The term is most commonly used to describe entertainment personalities so using it to describe politicians is a metaphor about a metaphor. To say that Obama became a star doesn't mean he became a real contender, or entered the corridors of power. It is to say that a large number of political non-insiders became fans. Is that specifically what we want to say about him, or could we describe it more precisely? Perhaps he did capture the popular imagination then. But he also showed himself to be an up-and-coming political candidate then, which is a somewhat different thing. Taking this back to entertainment, you might say that Sean Penn became a "rising star" after Fast Times at Ridgemont High. But you could not say that Mickey Rourke became a rising star after Diner (film) or Rumble Fish, even though among critics and film lovers that was a much more auspicious beginning. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The noun rising star may have arisen centuries ago as a metaphor, but according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, since 1767 it has been defined as:

a person or thing that is growing quickly in popularity or importance in a particular field <a rising star in politics>

and used this way in professionally-written encyclopedia articles.

Newross (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Much informal speech has old origins. "Rising star" is clearly colorful as opposed to precise language. That particular dicdef is not quite right, although "particular field" hints at the issue; there is a connotation of fandom and popular support with respect to a certain group, not importance as such. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to aid navigation

How about if everyone takes a look at the current text, which avoids the controversial and POV-ish term "rising star"? It seems to present the operative point in an encyclopedic manner. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Rising star" isn't controversial or POV-ish. Its a common term. So common, in fact that Encyclopedia Brittanica uses it, as do many newspapers, including one that specifically mention BHO. Deserted Cities (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Common? Perhaps given its use in EB. POV-ish? I think so given that one doesn't refer to another they may dislike as a "star". Controversial? Clearly so given the many, many paragraphs of text discussing it on this very talk page... QueenofBattle (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure, assuming you mean the following, I believe it is accurate, neutral, and well written:

... In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which quickly raised his prominence within the national Democratic Party, and started speculation about a presidential future. ...

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

QueenofBattle’s dislike of Obama is not a valid reason to remove a neutral, well-sourced, historically accurate description of Obama as a rising star in the national Democratic Party, which led to his selection to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

This narrowly framed RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article was initiated on October 22, 2009 by Jayron32
based on their unsubstantiated claim that "rising star" was slang or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles.
Both of these claims have been thoroughly refuted with extensive references to many dictionaries and many professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica article.

For seven months—from March 24, 2009 to October 21, 2009—this featured article said:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

fully supported by a citation to these contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources:

• Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state". Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
• Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born." The New York Times, p. A20.
• Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. A04.
• Scheiber, Noam (May 31, 2004). "Race against history. Barack Obama's miraculous campaign." The New Republic, pp. 21–22, 24–26 (cover story).
  
• Finnegan, William (May 31, 2004). "The Candidate. How far can Barack Obama go?" The New Yorker, pp. 32–38.
• Dionne Jr., E. J. (June 25, 2004). "In Illinois, a star prepares." The Washington Post, p. A29.
• Mendell, David (2007). Obama: From Promise to Power New York: Amistad/HarperCollins. ISBN 0060858206, pp. 235–259.
  • p. 247: "Word of Obama's rising star was now extending beyond Illinois, spreading especially fast through influential Washington political circles like blue-chip law firms, party insiders, lobbying houses."
  • p. 268: "His campaign fund-raising was now moving at a furious pace and the buzz around him as a rising star was increasing by the hour."

This historically accurate, reliably sourced sentence should not have been revised, as it was, by Unitanode on October 21, 2009,
in response to 67.60.50.5's comment just 55 minutes earlier on October 21, 2009 that this article was Way too biased,
changing:

• "overnight" → "almost overnight" (changed by QueenofBattle on November 15, 2009 → "quickly")
  • this article should be historically accurate and follow the cited reliable sources and say "overnight".
    • Why be inaccurate and say "almost overnight" or vague and say "quickly"?
• "made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party" → "raised his prominence within the national Democratic Party"
  • this article should be historically accurate and follow the cited reliable sources and say "made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party".
    • What prominence in the national Democratic Party did Obama previously have that was raised?
    • Are "rising stars in the national Democratic Party" often selected to give the keynote address at Democratic National Conventions?
    • Or are "raised prominences within the national Democratic Party" often selected to give the keynote address at Democratic National Conventions?

Obama's rapid rise to national prominence in 2004:

• from February 2004 when he was in second place—and the least-known—of the five top Democratic U.S. Senate primary candidates in Illinois
• to December 2004 when he was on the cover of the year-end double issue of Newsweek as "Who's Next"—on the newsstand next to the year-end double issue of Time magazine with George W. Bush on the cover as Man of the Year

is one of the most important parts of his biography, and this article should be historically accurate and follow the best, contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources available.

Newross (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WTF?! "QueenofBattle’s dislike of Obama is not a valid reason to remove a neutral, well-sourced, historically accurate description..." Who in the hell said I disliked Obama? How about we stick to the article and shy away from trying to assess other editors' motivations? Hell, I wasn't even the latest to remove the term "rising star"! It's uncivil and just plain uncalled for. My opposition to the use of the term "rising star" is largely because it is unencylopedic opinion, despite the many, many (and many, many) paragraphs Newross has devoted to defending or somehow attempting to justify it. Clear evidence that there is controversy surrounding the use of such a term. We don't win any arguments around here by dumping our homework on the table and giving an A to the heaviest pile. Pursuasion, compromise and consensus is the trick; yes, I'm sure I've read that somewhere... QueenofBattle (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

About the rising star. I don't see how this term is POV or incorrect in anyway. For someone to go from a single parent home to being the first African-American President, if that isn't someone who could be described as a "rising star" than it would be incorrect to call Einstein a genius, the Pope Holy, or to say Google's a search giant. His opposition can label him a 'celebrity', but 'rising-star' is far-fetched? Oh yeah, I forgot, 'celebrity' is, apparently, derogatory. 174.0.198.29 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "genius" is a definitional term reserved for one with a very high IQ, while "holy" is a term for one who has been vested with certain religious trappings. "Rising star" and "giant" used as has been suggested are NPOV opinion, no matter how many times they are used in the press. QueenofBattle (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of offering any evidence whatsoever, QueenofBattle's arguments are:

• POV-ish? I think so given that one doesn't refer to another they may dislike as a "star".
• Who in the hell said I disliked Obama? How about we stick to the article and shy away from trying to assess other editors' motivations? It's uncivil and just plain uncalled for.
• My opposition to the use of the term "rising star" is largely because it is unencyclopedic opinion.
• We don't win any arguments around here by dumping our homework on the table and giving an A to the heaviest pile.

Newross (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, recall this article is on probation, so we should all try extra hard to WP:AGF, be WP:CIVIL, not turn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and, of course, WP:LSMFT. The latter being a humor injection attempt --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And, Newross, exactly what is your point? I've been subjected to an ad hominem attack from you for which civility demands an apology, and your response is to repeat my comments as though one cannot easily read them no more than an inch of computer screen above. Am I the only one who's trying to figure our what kind of goofy parallel universe we have fallen into here? The term rising star is of an unencyclopedic tone and it is opinion, hence its use is not appropriate here. How many different ways do I need to say that?! QueenofBattle (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Gosh, am I the only editor old and dumb enough to actually have smoked unfiltered Luckies?

• I completely agree that the accusation of QoB's political bias is unconstructive and unwarranted. Speculation of editors' motives is fruitless and generally "fighting words"; I'll also add that while I've not agreed with every edit QoB has made, I don't question that editor's scrupulous good faith.

• I also don't believe this (to me) minor issue of wording is worth the Sturm und drang. We've had more than one version of the text. The current text seems fine to me.

• I recognize that others haven't weighed in on this issue lately, but perhaps like me they thought it was already resolved? Or perhaps the issue isn't imprtant enough to bother?

Respectfully, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much of a difference between the two edits that seem to be causing so much back and forth. Perhaps if someone quoted a Democratic official proclaiming Obama a 'rising star' that could be inserted, but otherwise, what does it matter? Honestly, both entries seem relevant. Isn't there some sort of compromise that can be worked out? I don't see any real WP:POV pushing here, just wording differences. DD2K (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed alternate version

I don't really care if we go with rising star, but I think the current phrasing (as cited by 4wajzkd02 above) is too wordy and somewhat awkward. Is the following better:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide, finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points. The win drew the attention of Democrats nationwide, prompting speculation about a possible Presidential campaign.

I dropped victory after landslide because its redundant (you wouldn't say he won in an unexpected victory). I also think the part about finishing 29 points ahead is currently too long. And most relevant to the issue at hand, changed out the last phrase to a more conversational form. Deserted Cities (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also fine with this proposed wording (or something substantially similar to it). QueenofBattle (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Even better than the current version. I hope this issue can close soon. -4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objection to my version, I've switched it. This doesn't close the issue on using "rising star," etc. Deserted Cities (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing:

• "landslide victory" → "victory"
• "29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival" → "beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points"

is not a big deal; and hinges on whether you think "beating the runner-up" is more encyclopedic than "ahead of his nearest Democratic rival"; and whether you think reinforcing that the win was against Democratic primary opponents is helpful.

The purpose of the last half of the sentence (which Deserted Cities broke off into a second sentence) was to highlight that Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary election
made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party overnight and
started speculation about a presidential future overnight,
as supported by the cited best available contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources.

• Being a rising star in the national Democratic Party guaranteed him a speaking role at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and put him on the shortlist to be considered—along with other rising stars—as a possible keynote speaker.
• Speculation in the news media about a possible presidential future, begat more speculation in the news media about a possible presidential future:
  • in news profiles before his July 3, 2004 selection as convention keynote speaker
  • in news profiles after the July 15, 2004 announcement of him as convention keynote speaker
  • in news interviews at the convention before his July 27, 2004 keynote address
  • in news commentary after his July 27, 2004 keynote address

But Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary election did not:

• directly "draw the attention of Democrats nationwide"
• directly "prompt speculation about a possible Presidential campaign”

The sources for this sentence report (and emphasize the suddenness with which)
Obama's unexpected March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary landslide victory made him
overnight (i.e. on March 17, 2004) a rising star in the national Democratic Party
(which is responsible for planning the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating conventions) and
overnight (i.e. on March 17, 2004) started speculation about a presidential future:

• Brown, Mark (March 17, 2004). Voters warmed to Obama, the next hot politician. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2:

  Obama has the potential to be the most significant political figure Illinois has sent to Washington since Abraham Lincoln.
  
  If he is elected in November, Obama will immediately replace Colin Powell as the person most talked about to be the first African-American elected president of the United States. That's a heavy load to put on any 42-year-old. Everybody who goes to the U.S. Senate thinks he's going to be president someday. Obama is one of the handful who really could be.

The sources for this sentence report Obama becoming a rising star "in the national Democratic Party"—
not "among Democrats nationwide":

• Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7:

  To some degree, the numbers mirror the primary results. Obama, 42, a state senator from Hyde Park, won a majority of 53 percent against six Democrats, while Ryan, 44, a Wilmette investment banker-turned-schoolteacher, won his eight-way nominating contest with a plurality of 36 percent.
  
  Vying to become only the third African American elected to the U.S. Senate in the last 100 years, Obama has enjoyed mostly positive media coverage since his victory, with party leaders and pundits invariably dubbing him "a rising star." Last week, a CNN reporter dubbed Obama a "rock star-esque candidate."

I propose restoring the historically accurate, fully sourced sentence that was stable in this featured article for seven months—
from March 24, 2009 to October 21, 2009—prior to changes by:
Unitanode on October 21, 2009, QueenofBattle on November 15, 2009, and Deserted Cities on November 16, 2009
but making "national Democratic Party" wikilink to: Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Current_structure_and_composition
to make it crystal clear that Obama:

• was only a "rising star" in the national Democratic Party
• was not a "rising star" among Democrats nationwide
• was not a "rising star" to the public at large
• was not a "rising star" to those who dislike Obama:

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal rejected. As you note, several editors have made edits to bring us to this point. Edits that have generally been met by acceptance in the spirit of collaboration by almost everyone except you, who seems to be failing to get the point. The current text is fine and reflects much consensus on this point. Enough is enough. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Or:

• retain the opening of Deserted Cities' November 16, 2009 revision:

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide, finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points. The win drew the attention of Democrats nationwide, prompting speculation about a possible Presidential campaign.

• make the election results parenthetical with em dashes,
• change "and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points" → "29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up"
• restore the closing of Newross' March 24, 2009 revision that accurately reflects the cited sources
  and was stable in this featured article for seven months until October 21, 2009:

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

• change "in the national Democratic Party" → "within the national Democratic Party
  (the national attention mentioned in the cited sources was from leaders of the national Democratic Party, specifically: presumptive U.S. Presidential nominee John Kerry, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Terry McAuliffe, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) chairman Jon Corzine):

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide—finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up—which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, still rejected. You haven't addressed the concerns of any of the other editors, you have merely restated your arguments. You have offered no collaboration, no compromise, no nothing. Until you do, we are going to have a real tough time moving forward on this. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have very patiently addressed, at length, concerns of other editors. Newross (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

New version

The entire basis for this RfC:
an unsubstantiated claim that the term rising star was slang and/or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles,
has in the assessment of most editors who have commented here, been thoroughly refuted by evidence to the contrary.

Seeing no discussion of the legitimate issue that I have raised: that the latest revision no longer accurately reflected the cited sources,
I have implemented a version which does accurately reflect the cited sources:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide—finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up—which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

• Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state". Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
• Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born." The New York Times, p. A20.
• Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. A04.
• Scheiber, Noam (May 31, 2004). "Race against history. Barack Obama's miraculous campaign." The New Republic, pp. 21–22, 24–26 (cover story).
  
• Finnegan, William (May 31, 2004). "The Candidate. How far can Barack Obama go?" The New Yorker, pp. 32–38.
• Dionne Jr., E. J. (June 25, 2004). "In Illinois, a star prepares." The Washington Post, p. A29.
• Mendell, David (2007). Obama: From Promise to Power New York: Amistad/HarperCollins. ISBN 0060858206, pp. 235–259.
  • p. 247: "Word of Obama's rising star was now extending beyond Illinois, spreading especially fast through influential Washington political circles like blue-chip law firms, party insiders, lobbying houses."
  • p. 268: "His campaign fund-raising was now moving at a furious pace and the buzz around him as a rising star was increasing by the hour."

Newross (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Seeing no discussion ... have implemented a version...". Pardon, but no discussion should not by itself give leave to make a change, nor do I see that their has been consensus on your issue. Additionally, RFCs expire in a month. This was opened 1 month and 9 days ago, but discussion was still being held 17 days ago (a quick review indicates). So, as I understand it:

• if still open, I believe a change is procedurally incorrect,
• if closed, then the RFC can't be used to justify a change not documented as agreed to in the RFC.

Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Before anybody reverts this, I'd like to advise we check ourselves and make sure our actions are not determined by dudgeon or prejudice, by which I mean perception of the "slanginess" of the Encyclopedia Britannica term "rising star". I do wish Newross would have considered the point I raised with him that the preponderance of his sources were dated to the time surrounding the convention speech and that this actually represents the notable period of ascent, but he is correct in everything he states, including the fact that the opposition to his suggestion had nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of his claims and sources. 4's points are presumably valid, but protocol shouldn't take preference to the digestion of salient facts in determining the editorial value of so thoroughly researched and reliably sourced a suggestion. While this particular word is not a huge issue with me, the broader issue at play here—editors at this page trying to arrive at balance between facts and ideologies, especially when they are (or they imagined readers would be) put off by terms they wouldn't use, regardless of the preponderance of reliable sources who objectively have. Newross is clearly not of the delinquent ilk that previously marred these pages and it's the flat refusals to revisit initial reactions to consider his (yegads) ample sourcing that seem to be the break with editorial protocol that beg comment here. Abrazame (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You make very good points.

• "Before anybody reverts","protocol shouldn't take preference " - I did not feel strongly enough about either version, nor about the process (What's that saying - there are no rules?) to revert.
• "not a huge issue with me" - nor with me. I suspect this may be why there's been little discussion - others may feel the same way.
• "Newross is clearly not of the delinquent ilk" - agree.
• "ample sourcing" - also agree, but...
• "slanginess" of the Encyclopedia Britannica term "rising star" and "balance between facts and ideologies" - my concern is regarding both issues.

I believe that the term, as used (not in a quote) gives the perception that the article is not-neutral in that section. I thought there was a proposal to provide a quote from a notable source (e.g., "...such that the AP referred to him as a "...rising star in the Democratic party..."). This would address my concerns, and hopefully those of other editors. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Respectfully, I didn't say "slanginess", I said "prejudice, by which I mean perception of the 'slanginess'..." It was an allusion to Stephen Colbert's illusory "truthiness". My point is that, given the usage by the Encyclopedia Britannica, the most highly regarded print encyclopedia, I don't think the previously expressed hunches about the term by a handful of editors at this page are valid. I mean no offense; I have had to admit I was wrong in my understanding of something a time or two at this page.

As to "balance between facts and ideologies", that's something we must not strive for. Facts are facts and belong in an encyclopedia. Ideology is something that exists in a realm irrespective of facts that may or may not support that ideology; ideology causes prejudiced reactions against concepts it vomits back before digesting, rather than absorption of the facts. When current facts fly in the face of ideology, or of once-popular predictions, these editors decide to remove them, regardless of the veracity of the facts. Elsewhere on this page are mysteriously stalled discussions about article edits wherein reliably sourced facts were removed in favor of a neutered POV that ignores the facts. This is not the same as neutral POV, which accepts facts whether or not we like them or wish they had occurred due to some different policy or at some different point in time.

To your suggestion that we use the term in a quote, that misses the whole point of Newross' sourcing. The whole point of all those refs (a thousand points of leitmotif?) is that this isn't a couple of people using the term, it's a good many, enough to warrant the usage outside of quotes. We did this elsewhere when, if I recall correctly, someone here was catering to pessimism about the economy's recovery thus far and so wanted to cite an actuarial fact as the opinion of a single economist. That's not a good editor's default position. We need to do our best to understand what is being discussed in an article and discern facts and figures (that can be simply declared) from feelings and ideologies (which, if relevant at all, would need to be quoted).

Obama's celebrity was universally accepted in 2008, so much so that it was used against him by his detractors. As these many, m-a-n-y references prove, the potential of his celebrity was injected into the bloodstream of and felt throughout his party in the middle and latter part of 2004. This is Wikipedia. The whole point is that we are reporting what others have said. We don't need to put it all in quotes in order to make that point, it's a given as it is backed up by the refs. The objection that someone here raised, that someone reading might not use the phrase about Obama, misses the point (and is itself POV by proxy), as the whole point is that we are stating that Obama became this within his own party. This isn't about the presumed ideological prejudices of "someone reading the article", it's about Barack Obama. Dozens of sources acknowledge this as a fact. So clearly we can authoritatively acknowledge this as a fact without singling out one of these many sources. Such a thing would mislead the reader, as it suggests this was a characterization promoted by a single media outlet. The purpose of this article is not to represent the opinions of the AP, and not to cower from the specter of the hypothetical unpersuaded detractor of the president, but to represent facts.

As I said, my persistence in this issue isn't simply to make this point in the service of this one word, but to extrapolate this throughout the discussions of reliably sourced facts that start only to stop short of digestion here. Salient and relevant facts shouldn't be removed, or mitigated, or relegated to quotes pinned on individuals or groups when they are in fact sourced to reliably sourced data and understood and represented in their proper context. Abrazame (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You make more excellent points (and sorry for missing the allusion - I am slow, sometimes). Your key points, I believe, are (a) "enough to warrant the usage outside of quotes" and (b) "Facts are facts" (with the thought provoking note about "stalled discussions about article edits wherein reliably sourced facts were removed in favor of a neutered POV that ignores the facts"). No one should dispute point b. in any way (although I think that the editing process sometimes yields compromises as a counterbalance to long arguments - my recommendation regarding the use of quotes was such a compromise). As for point a., to what extent does WP:CONSENSUS come into play? On this topic, we've had lots of discussion, and even an RFC (which I think is still open), with clear consensus. It may be that other editors don't care enough about the fine point of using the phrase "rising star" or not to care to comment. Then what? You've certainly made me think hard about this issue.

(Outdent) For other editors who don't want to wade through all these millions of words yet would answer our call for them to join or revisit, I would distill and distinguish the elements that need to be addressed as follows:

• The most highly respected Encyclopedia Britannica freely uses the term "rising star" in the context of politicians. In light of this fact about the Encyclopedia Britannica, it's hard to see how consensus at Wikipedia would maintain that the term is "unencyclopedic".
• Seeing as how this preeminent usage wasn't represented in this discussion until after several editors weighed in with their prior conceptions that the phrase was unencyclopedic, it would help if they would revisit this particular element of the discussion and, after considering this fact and perhaps reviewing the examples, would declare whether their conception is steadfast in the face of this fact, or if this fact changes their perception.
• At the very beginning of this thread and prior to any referencing or supportive materials by Newross, three editors posited the solution of using quotes as a way of including the term. Reams of references later, all four official respondents to the RfC—three editors familiar to this page including myself and one invited by the RfC—voted unequivocally to support the statement without the use of quotes. This makes five clear-voiced votes to the RfC, subsequent to the references that support the term as encyclopedic and as widespread, in favor of the declarative usage, including Newross. The only clear-voiced vote against, though not officially cast, has been QueenofBattle. In fact, it is nearly only QueenofBattle who has been arguing against, and reverting, this point. For him to argue, in this context, that there is no consensus, simply because he doesn't agree, seems to fly in the face of the concept of RfCs, consensus, indeed the very idea of facts. Gordon Ecker came out in opposition of landslide and didn't weigh in on the shooting star term; however, after announcing that he would raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid, he didn't return to announce that there was absolutely no enthusiasm for denouncing the use of metaphor—in fact, our own Wikidemon having articulated the most thorough response against the broad suggestion, given the fact that common, plain language is so full of metaphor that we barely even notice it.

So while QueenofBattle sees no consensus, I see one person refusing to address the facts (QueenofBattle), one person sincerely considering the deeper issues but not yet having arrived at a position (4wajzkd02), a handful of people who weighed in at the outset with suggestions but no clear position before any references were presented and who have not returned to the discussion in almost a month and a half, indicating no intention to do so, and five people who have officially voted in favor of using the term, sans quotes, in the article. This is our consensus. Three proffering a suggestion but avoiding the discussion like the plague, five for, one against, one on the fence. Sounds like consensus to me. Abrazame (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed at least a million of the words in this discussion. But as I have stated before, I continue to dislike the informal metaphor "rising star", and see no reason to use it in this article. There are plenty of other formal and non-metaphorical ways to say the same thing, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone is arguing for the informal metaphor. If it is used, it will not wreck the article, but it will make it every so slightly less well written. LotLE×talk 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not refusing to address anything, so let's just lay off that tired attempt, shall we? What I have asked for, and what has yet to be provided, is a pursuasive arguement for making the change. All I see is the same discussion posted over and over, with no response to my questions. No effort to engage in a dialogue. No anything other than, once again, trying to pick a fight with me. If there are several editors "on the fence" (and there are), their views should not be disregarded simply because there are five "for". And, I agree with LotLE's point, immediately preceeding. What I can support is something to the effect of "...which according to [insert RS here] made him a rising star over night...," which I believe is in the spirit of NPOV and will help address the concerns of me, 4wajzkd02, (maybe LotLE, too?) and others. So, Abrazame and Newross, please tell the rest of us here, why this may not be acceptable to you, if it is not. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still here. I haven't commented because my opinion hasn't changed significantly. I could live with either version but prefer the one without "overnight" and "rising star" because those terms give an appearance of informality of tone and perhaps non-neutral bias. I believe they are used properly here and sourced, and that there is no actual bias, but they don't add significantly to the article and may cause slight loss of confidence because of the way they read. A more specific term, e.g. "by the next day" or "within several days" or the like, would do the trick. As an aside, I don't think anyone is disagreeing much on substance, only on wording, so if revert warring is a bad thing it's especially silly here. I don't think consensus is clear enough either way, or that failing consensus it's clear enough what the status quo version was, to really opine on how it should read pending a resolution to the discussion. Why not just draw straws, or let the most recent revert stand, whichever way that happens to be? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hearing (or seeing) no objection to my proposal from last week, I will make the change. Other than Newross, who seems hell-bent on having his/her way through a continual edit war, are there any other objections to this? QueenofBattle (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I tried to place in this absurdly long discussion about almost nothing, or very little difference, either version reads fine to me. Perhaps if someone finds a quote from a Democratic official proclaiming Barack Obama a 'rising star' they could quote and cite that official. That would read better than citing a media outlet. In any case, either version looks good. Perhaps we can discuss it in a non-aggressive fashion and come up with a consensus. I really don't think anyone is that far away from the other person, and this whole section is way too long and needs to be decided and archived. DD2K (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• A note of clarification to 4wajzkd02 regarding "a change is procedurally incorrect" if this RfC is still open, and to Wikidemon regarding "it's clear enough what the status quo version was." The status quo version for the seven months before this RfC—and for three days after this RfC was opened—was: "...which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party..."
• Why remove "overnight" which was literally true and was emphasized in multiple sources cited for the sentence?
• Why attribute "which made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party" to only one ("according to The New York Times") of the multiple sources cited for the sentence??

Newross (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't sound right. Or it sounds less right than citing a source. Who is proclaiming Barack Obama a 'rising star'? Wikipedia? While it is sourced, it should be attributed to that source when writing the article. As for why the change, Wikipedia editors often changes the wording in articles in order to improve upon the project. I've been ambivalent for the most part on the wording, but I thought the last version was the best so far. Seeing as that seems to be the consensus, I am changing it back. Except for leaving 'overnight'. That is also cited. DD2K (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Really and truly, if you can write something like "seeing as that seems to be the consensus," I think it's safe to say you haven't actually read this thread, right? Can we get some people up in here who have actually read what Newross has cited, if not my suggestion that there is consensus for Newross' edits or QueenofBattle's suggestion that his lone refusal to accept this and a lot of ambivalence in the face of the support I note means there is no consensus? Abrazame (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to attribute the term "rising star" solely to The New York Times when it was used ubiquitously—including the multiple sources (The New York Times, USA Today, Obama: From Promise to Power) cited for it.

There has been no consensus to change the accurate, fully sourced, pre-RfC wording: "...which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party..." Newross (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Me, 4wajzkd02, LotLE, Wikidemon, DD2K all seem to be OK with the change. Newross and Abrazame seem to be the only two that believe in their version of consensus. The NYT is one of the RS that termed him a rising star, although not the only RS. Attributing it to the NYT is in no way inaccurate or inapproriate. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But concensus isn't a vote and a great deal of the issues raised by yourself and various other editors have been answered ad naseum. Just using one of a half dozen sources reduces the WP:Weight of the rising star term to irrelevance. Because many major newspapers articles, news organizations, and books about the president use the term rising star, so should we because we have to use what the WP:RS say, unless you have found some sources that indicate that there is a dispute somewhere? I've heard the mighty Rush Limbaugh calling Obama a rising star, sarcastially mind you but rising star isn't a pov term unless you want it to be. I for one have issues with the reasons for its omission more so than its ommission itself. There is far too much wiki-lawyering over the point, which is itself very well supported by reliable sources. I doubt that the same standard is applied to many other articles for such a widely used term. 161.150.2.57 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I am OK with the change, and agree that the attribution seems fine. Regarding the latter, it seems that the concern is that attributing this to the NYT somehow diminishes the statement (i.e., implies that only the times provided this appellation). I don't read it that way. Regardless, ould adding something like "numerous sources, including the NYT," help? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The discussion seems to carry much acrimony, not wrapped anymore around the use of the term, but rather about the attribution. I do not believe it is appropriate to present the term as an established fact. There are many RS using the term (as we have learned), but the question is no longer about RSourcing. It is about attribution of the term. Attribute it to the NYT or to any of the other RS (I don't give a flip), but we must attribute it to someone or someones. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

4wajzkd02, I agree. I was going to add something like that myself. 'Numerous sources, including the NYT' seems like it would fit well within the article. DD2K (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If we must 'attribute' the use of common english to a source, I'd recommend the AP given that they repersent like what, 1700 newspapers (including the NYT, and hundreds of other newspapers)and 5000 other news sources(radio and television mainly). Saying "the AP classified Barack Obama as a rising star" is equivilent to saying "Barack Obama is (or rather was in 2004) a rising star." considering that virtually every US newspaper uses the AP as a primary source and most international papers would default to the AP as well concerning issues such as this. I'm amazed at the level of wrangling over this. Are there any sources that disagree with Barack's rising star status? I can see the desire not to use 'is' statements, however in this case I doubt that level of caution is justified. A person going from an unknown to President of the United States in a perior of 4 years seems to need a term, and the term that has always been used in politics is rising star(of which Obama is one of the greatest examples in terms of his rise). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.88.102 (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Must Newross swoop in here again to remind us all of how many, ma-ny sources acknowledged this quite unexceptional statement that Obama was suddenly considered a rising star within his own party? If the Encyclopedia Britannica can call minority whip Eric Cantor a rising star, I daresay Wikipedia should acknowledge the amply and reliably sourced contemporaneous observations of the then-future president of the United States having been seen as one.

"New consensus" isn't established by contradicting another editor (me) who avers the old one remains in good standing, nor by having one editor change their mind (I remind QueenofBattle that it was he who added the version I most heartily support, with QoB acknowledging consensus in that edit summary). A specific RfC began this issue here, and every single vote to that RfC acknowledged Newross' sources, was against the change and for the term as encyclopedic. Gordon Ecker then started a thread at Wikipedia talk:words to avoid that was, in fairness to him, overbroad; it was largely dismissed. Each substantive attempt to establish a different consensus has failed. Certainly the reliability of the sources are not in question. (Though it took us a l-o-n-g time after that should have been obvious to stop rehashing those points.)

Nor are the sources the point of the statement. The point is not that a newspaper ventured an opinion or made a statement about the whole country, the point is that he was seen as such within the Democratic party. As to what one or another party may seek to claim, If the party sees someone as such, then either the media sees that there is a reason or reasons there and it's not just PR, and so reports the what, when, where, why and how as true, or they don't really buy into the story because of what they see as mitigating factors or overzealous PR. If there were no supporting or corroborating evidence, there would be no thread here, as it would be dismissed as PR. If this was a case where two or three esoteric sources without much credibility in general had reported this — and did so as their own opinions or prognostications ("we see stardom in the future of one Barack Obama") — then it would be obvious that the story was that only a few saw the potential, and if it were worth making that point, we would do so with an in-line attribution. ("The Dubuque Democrat was one of a very few sources to call the then-unknown senate candidate a "rising star", but in less than three years he had gone on to win the Iowa caucuses" or whatever, not the most encyclopedic sounding sentence, but you see my point). And it's not about Dubuque, if a New York paper had been the only notable source to opine on rising stardom, then indeed that is what the article would note, with all that a reader might infer from that.

But the point here is that, should we attribute this widely held observation (of Obama's suddenly vaunted status within his party) to a single source, we would be leading the reader to infer something that is not so, namely, that this single source ventured a unique or proprietary opinion or observation, or even that they had a "scoop" on this news that other sources somehow missed, neglected to note, or characterized in a fundamentally different fashion. That, of course, is not so; in fact it was, if I may, the consensus of a variety of notable sources.

It is this failure to tell legitimate informed consensus from a prejudiced collective hunch — or a lone POV — that is the bane of this talk page; we must keep from having this overcompensation on the part of responsible editors and attacks on the part of people who just don't get it spill over into the article.

This is an unexceptional statement. As the anon mentions above — and which QueenofBattle ignores for eleven days until this morning's edit wherein he disingenuously claims consensus has changed, despite my assertion to the contrary above that — in the entirety of this lengthy thread (which seemed exceedingly strident and oblivious in its perpetuation by essentially one dissenter, until the recent abortion spectacle) there has been not a single source that contradicts the statement. This is not even what you could call by looking through the prism of a conflict-hungry media a "controversy". No controversy whatsoever that Obama experienced an overnight bump in the awareness within the party leaders on the night of the primary and again experienced an overnight bump in the awareness within the party as a whole, and the national media, as a result of his convention speech. It is not undue weight to note that someone who was a community organizer one day and POTUS a few short years later had a meteoric rise, and to pinpoint these two exceptional nights where he went from one plane to another. This isn't about being starstruck, it's not about being pro- or anti- anybody, it is about acknowledging in broad summary strokes when and how this happened, which is what this biography is supposed to do. By all means, give more detail when more detail gives a context necessary to understand the issue, and that could include specifying a source when it may be a minority view or have a tilt in one direction or another. But we are not saying that Obama became a star in the whole United States or even, ultimately, across Europe, Africa, etc. (not that that would be an exceptional statement either), nor are we saying he was beloved by all those who acknowledge(d) his stardom (it's hard to even think of a major star these days that doesn't have significant detractors for one reason or another or for no reason), we are saying he became seen as one within the Democratic Party. I have been able in a couple of instances to admit I was mistaken about a detail or a perspective; I hope it can be admitted by all that this absurdly minor issue is at long last seen for what it is, the (widespread reliable source) acknowledgement of a truth (which has indeed borne out, i.e. his celebrity continued to rise, that celebrity being both credited and mocked as he ascended quickly into the presidency) within a specific and obvious parameter (his own party, the one that within three years had nominated him for the presidency). Indeed, Hillary Clinton remained a star as well, the statement isn't even that he was the only star in the Democratic Party. This is a softball editorial issue if I ever saw one. Abrazame (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going to ignore most of Abrazame's whiney, pouty, pseudo-liberal elitism wrapped in the I-don't-get-enough-attention-at-home-so-I'll-try-to-show-them-here-how-smart-I-think-I-am diatribe. Me, 4wajzkd02, LotLE, Wikidemon, DD2K all seem to be OK with including a reference to the NYT, and it ain't common that we all agree. I have said before that I am fine with a reference to the AP, or to any one of the other RS. But, it must be referenced to a reliable source(s). Must. There is no committee that vests one with the robes and trappings of a "rising star". It is a viewpoint, and a widely-held one at that. But to refuse to attribute it to a single or multiple RS is to attempt to insert a POV. We were all happy with the inclusion of the RS for many, many days, while Newross and Abrazame seem to be the only two that believe in their version of consensus. The NYT is one of the RS that termed him a rising star, although not the only RS. Attributing it to the NYT is in no way inaccurate or inappropriate. I look forward to letting others weigh back in, given Newross and Abrazame went radio silent on this for a few weeks before swooping back in yesterday, having now apparently remembered where their PC's "on" buttons are located. So, Newross and Abrazame, once again I renew my request for you to tell the rest of us why we shouldn't attribute the term to the several reliable sources. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is beyond unbelievable that there has been so much discussion over this utterly trivial matter. Either version is perfectly fine, but I am happier with the version that includes the NYT source preferred by QueenofBattle. That being said, can we not call people "pseudo-liberal elitists" please? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, its also an utterly valid point that by the time the AP calls something, its done. Lets just attribute it to the AP, "the Associated press, and its thousands of member news organizations throughout the world, declared Barach Obama a rising star, based on its prevalent useage in American English, in 2004". Placing it to one sources trivializes the entire cite and Barack is such a blatently good example for 'rising star' that it hurts. Queen seems to have missed the boat here, rising star isnt' a status bestowed on someone by committee any more than movie star is, its a descriptor of Barack Obama's status in 2004. It applied through until he got elected president 4 years later, now he's a risen star and unless things turn around he's going to be a falling one. Queen also needs to apologize for his behaviour here, this discussion is painful enough without editors disparaging each other over well founded points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.88.102 (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Really a rising star within the national Democratic Party

Obama's landslide victory in the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary election is biographically important for making him, overnight, a rising star within the national Democratic Party, because being a rising star within the national Democratic Party assured Obama a speaking role—and put him on the shortlist (along with other rising stars in the national Democratic Party like first-term Governors Jennifer Granholm, 45, of Michigan, Janet Napolitano, 46, of Arizona, Bill Richardson, 56, of New Mexico, all elected in 2002; first-term Governor Mark Warner, 49, of Virginia, elected in 2001; and second-term Governor Tom Vilsack, 53, of Iowa, re-elected in 2002)[13] to give the keynote address—at the 2004 Democratic National Convention put on by the national Democratic Party.

The initiator of the original RfC (Jayron32),[14] and many other editors who have commented in the long ensuing discussion here, agree that the multiple cited sources in the 2004 U.S. Senate campaign section of this WP:Summary style article—and the additional contemporaneous sources cited in the United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004 subarticle and talk page (A rising star in the national Democratic Party) that it summarizes—establish that Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary election—which made him the odds-on favorite to become the only African American member of the U.S. Senate—really made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party—the organization headquartered at 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC whose mission is to help elect Democratic U.S. Presidents, Democratic U.S. Senators, Democratic U.S. Representatives, Democratic state governors, and Democratic state legislatures, and is responsible every four years for organizing the Democratic National Convention.

With a multitude of contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources ubiquitously reporting that Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary election made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party, it is inappropriate to single out only one (The New York Times, or the Associated Press, or Chicago Tribune, or Chicago Sun-Times, or Daily Herald, or Los Angeles Times, or Newhouse News Service, or USA Today, or The Wall Street Journal , or The Washington Post, or The Philadelphia Inquirer, or The New Republic, or The New Yorker, or Peoria Journal Star, or New York Post, or The Boston Globe) of the multiple cited sources.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the report of Obama being a rising star in the national Democratic Party by any specific newspaper or news service or any collection of newspapers and news services was biographically important—as opposed to his actually being a rising star in the national Democratic Party—which clearly was biographically important because it led to his being the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

There is no consensus for QueenofBattle's inappropriate repeated changes from the accurate, fully sourced, pre-RfC wording:

...which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party...

to:

...which prompted the New York Times to refer to him as a rising star within the national Democratic Party...

attributing "rising star within the national Democratic Party" to only one of the multiple cited sources, implying that only The New York Times referred to him as a rising star in the national Democratic Party, or that it is biographically important that The New York Times reported that Obama was a rising star in the national Democratic Party, or that Obama was only referred to as a rising star in the national Democratic Party—as opposed to actually being a rising star in the national Democratic Party. Please stop making changes for which there is not consensus. Newross (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my French, but this is becoming the most fucking ridiculous argument in the history of argumentation. This needs to go off to some sort of dispute resolution, because it is plainly obvious that "rising star", of all goddamned things, needs to be settled once and for all, and the entire lot of you who have kept this crap rolling on and on and on for months are fundamentally incapable of solving it yourselves. Tarc (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and thought we had a consensus to compromise and use 'rising star', but to attribute it to a media organization or a specific person. I don't think we need people citing Wikipedia as a source for proclaiming Barack Obama a 'rising star' after his State Senate U.S. Senate Democratic primary win. How about 'future leader', if we are not going to cite a source. I don't understand why this can't be compromised, it's such a small issue and should be cleared up by now.DD2K (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama polling numbers

Rasmussen is tracking things here.

Questions for the group:

1. Is Rasmussen a reliable source?
2. Should we be drawing attention to these numbers?
3. How many days must pass in a row with the numbers going in the same direction before we can say they are "trending" that way?
4. Is the information on the Rasmussen page enough for us to state "trending up", "trending down" or "generally stable"?

Pierre.cardoone (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1. It is a reliable source for Rasmussen data, but that data tends to be conservatively biased. Their data collection technique has been called into question because it is based purely on robocalls.
2. Not really. This BLP is supposed to be written from an historical perspective, so these recent numbers suffer from... well... recentism.
3. I would imagine that data from many months would be necessary, but it could only be used in conjunction with data from other polling agencies.
4. Probably not, but this is rather rendered moot from the previous answers I've given.

-- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Please provide a reliable source for your accusation that Rasmussen data is "conservatively biased." Was it so-biased when it showed Bush's poll numbers in the tank?
2. Poll numbers were included in the previous president's article almost instantaneously, so this argument holds no water. While I agree that the numbers should show a trend over time, there's no precedent for simply ignoring them.
3. I agree that data from multiple polling agencies would be helpful. Most that I've seen also show a sharp decline, though.
4. It's not "rendered moot" by your statements of opinion at all. I'd say if the Rasmussen numbers have trended down for a matter of a few months, it's enough to make such statements, as long as those statements are identified with the Rasmussen polls in the text as well.

UnitAnode 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Dangerous Brew, Talking Points Memo.
2. I'm not interested in what happened in other articles. "Because it happened in another article" is not a valid excuse for making this one bad.
3. ALL Presidents experience a decline in approval rating, so this is hardly interesting or important.
4. The question was specific to the linked page, and you would have to say it would not be appropriate unless it was accompanied by similar data from a selection of other pollsters.

-- Scjessey (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: Wikinews is that way. This is an encyclopedia.  Frank  |  talk  00:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Opinion piece, hardly reliable.
2. You made the statement, as if it were some kind of precedent. I was pointing out that your statement was categorically wrong.
3. This is a quite significant decline, as has been discussed by various commentators.
4. I agree that it should be accompanied by examples from other pollsters that show the same type of decline. And other pollsters do show it as well.

UnitAnode 01:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if it helps, I'll add my own opinion to TPM's and confirm that their polling is shitty and biased! -- Scjessey (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. Rasmussen is a respected pollster. Not liking the numbers his methods spits out doesn't make his work "shitty and biased." I take it you've failed to find a reliable source to back your claim of bias? UnitAnode 01:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess the exclamation point wasn't sufficient to make my sarcasm come through. I could just as easily insist you produce a reliable source for "respected pollster" though. Have fun digging for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to chime in, in regards to point number 3 (the numbers themselves being of interest), there are available references stating that his current place in the polls is a historical first. That by itself would seem noteworthy (though I can't say if it should be here or elsewhere). Arkon (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Kitsap Sun, was one I found calling him that. UnitAnode 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not really a reliable source. Just a blog. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One wonders where the numbers would've been had Obama not been bequeathed two wars, a totally destroyed economy, a gigantic deficit, and a population with memories like goldfish. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's original research, and I think you know it. UnitAnode 01:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well sure it is, but it doesn't stop me wondering. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but Bush supporters could "wonder" the same thing about what his presidency would have been like if any of his 4 predecessors had dealt with the burgeoning terrorism issue. We need to deal with what's real, and what's sourceable. UnitAnode 02:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Bush seemed to "deal" with it by making virtually the entire globe hate America even more than previously, as far as I can tell. Mercifully, Obama has begun to reverse this awful trend (and he got a Peace Prize for it). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He "got a Peace Prize" for not being Bush, but that's neither here nor there, so this tangent should probably stop now. UnitAnode 02:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread should win something for being nicely formatted. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! And, for potentially having the most agreeable disagreement in the history of Talk:Barack Obama... :) UnitAnode 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia's new gold standard for smartly-dressed, indisputable disputes. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I doubt there is a "huge" decline. Obama's approval rating has been pretty much constant at around 50±2 (Gallup) for the past three months. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Darn it! User:Unitanode and I had this pretty seesaw perfectly balanced, and then you came along and fucked it all up with your messy indentation antics. Bah! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Recentism" as an argument against including critical information

It's been my experience, both here and at other difficult articles, that WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS are the most overapplied reasons for non-inclusion of relevant, well-sourced material that I've yet seen. These are not blanket prohibitions from including recent happenings. In fact, the very fact that WP isn't bound up by such normal, paper-bound hindrances is what makes it great. I'd like to ask for a moratorium on using those links without other reasons for non-inclusion. We're also not made of paper, and our articles need to reflect that. UnitAnode 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS are useful tools against the "Obama rated himself a B+, shall we include it?" brigade. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But they are vastly overused when it comes to leaving out larger issues, like long-term (and evidently historical) declines in approval rating, as well as other critical information. This isn't the only article I've seen these two misused on, but it just happened to be (ironically) the most recent one I've seen it on. UnitAnode 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Each issue that comes up should stand on its own. I don't personally see the problem you are seeing. Lots of people want lots of things in this article, and there is only room available for the most notable and significant stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly agree about each issue needing to stand on its own. However, the problem I see is that too often, issues are dismissed with NOTNEWS (and other similar links) instead of being measured fairly. The steep decline in approval rating is just the current problem. UnitAnode 02:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem all that "steep" to me, especially not recently LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The following aggregation of all polls, found at RealClearPolitics, does show a very steep decline. Also, various sources have discussed that the first-year decline is verging on historical.

Aggregated pollsUnitAnode 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a little more than a 20-point drop, even with the outliers in the dataset. How is that "very steep"? And how is that important, given that it won't change a damn thing anyway? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Month-by-month polling numbers look like a poster child for why we have the Wikipedia:Recentism essay. What is are these numbers supposed to prove, and what difference does this make in the long term? If the numbers go up, or down, next month are we going to append a new description of that change too, or just rewrite the poll analysis every month? The problem is that the relevance / implications are unclear, and won't be known for a long time. At that point this month's polls probably won't be noteworthy at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Obama's first year approval numbers are among the worst of post-World War II presidents", the article itself is very balanced, as it talks about how despite Clinton and Reagan's first year struggles with approval ratings, they were both successfully reelected. This is NOT "recentism", it's widely-discussed, and wholly appropriate for this article. There are more such sources, if you'd like me to post them. (Also, I only posted the charts, to show that there has been a steep drop in approval rating this year. Obviously, those aren't the sourcing that would be used for inclusion in the article. UnitAnode 15:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's not appropriate. Approval ratings are meaningless, and I believe that pollsters produce them just to get paid. Even the most partisan right-winger would agree that the current approval rating is a reflection of how bad things are with respect to the economy - the fault of administrations prior to this one. The polls won't change anything, and they will probably climb before Obama is up for re-election - just as they always do. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  There is no support, either in policy or precedent, for your claim that "approval ratings are meaningless." Many, if not most, articles about prominent political figures include information about their approval ratings. This is starting to veer dangerously close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a reason to keep out relevant, well-sourced information. UnitAnode 16:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  There's no need to overreact like that. There is nothing to say that approval ratings should be in this article because they are in others. Besides, you know as well as I do that even if his approval dropped to virtually zero he would still be President (which is what I meant by meaningless). Anyway, you will need to build a consensus for inclusion, so I recommend opening up a new thread with some proposed language and then we'll have a proper debate. Agreed? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  How did I overreact? There is no need to build consensus for every edit. I'll make the edit, if you have policy-based reasons for removing it, do so, and then we'll discuss it. UnitAnode 16:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  I would start with some proposed text, rather than a list of sources. That sources exist is not in dispute. This is going to be about language and WP:WEIGHT, not sources. And you must certainly do need to build consensus for a controversial addition, or you will likely spark an unnecessary edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Adding information about drops in approval rating to a post-World War II president's article is not a "controversial" edit. There's nothing in policy that gives any other editor (or group of editors, for that matter) "right of first refusal" about the edits of another. As WP:BRD points out, we are to be bold, and if reverted, discuss the policy issues surrounding the edit. As for your "likely spark an edit war", it won't come from me. I'd just encourage you to not blindly revert whatever I insert. I have no ax to grind with Pres. Obama. I voted for him, and would do so again, were the election held today. Whatever I write will be fair, non-partisan, and reliably-sourced. UnitAnode 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'd really like to assume good faith here, but I must disagree with the notion that this is "uncontroversial". The approval rating is already covered in the article in a neutral manner (3rd para of "Cultural and political image"), and it would be difficult to see what you could wish to add to it other than opinion about the "steepness" of the drop. And WP:BRD is a rarely a wise approach on a controversial article under probation, to be quite honest. Propose some text and then let people discuss it. Consensus before contention! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  The "right of first refusal" you refer to does exist for this article, at least as a de-facto condition, because it's on probation. But regardless of that, wouldn't Presidency of Barack Obama be a much better place to put this information?  Frank  |  talk  16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I found a spot for it, and I'd be completely shocked if anyone found anything really objectionable about the short addition I've made. UnitAnode 16:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  I do not support this edit, so you'll have to be shocked. As Frank said, this isn't really the right article for it. Most seriously of all, however, is the use of speculative opinion pieces among the sources. The Eric Black piece is just a blog, and certainly not authoritative or reliable. I will give you a chance to refine this addition and move it to Presidency of Barack Obama, but if it's still hanging around after a couple of hours I will be reverting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm reverting as being undue attention to things of little importance, with a fairly obvious lack of consensus. We're in a quiet spell on the article so no harm in being bold, but it might be more productive to propose solutions to disputed proposals here first. There's been a general consensus here, and across most articles about people and things that get polled, that polling numbers aren't terribly relevant, nor are they a good surrogate for actual opinions and beliefs about what happens in the world. With only forty-something presidents in the nation's history, and the world changing (real world events, the politics of it, and the business and science of polling), there is almost no significance to any polling phenomenon being the first, or most extreme, example of something. Sure, Obama's polls dropped faster than any other contemporary wartime president who took office before the nadir of a major recession, but he's the only one, or maybe one out of two or three. That's as off-topic as finding a whole bunch of "firsts" to cover, first left handed pickup basketball president, first organic garden in the white house, etc. We already have a sentence about approval rating and the drop, at best I think we should just update that sentence to keep it current, not go off into a digression about polling numbers. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is utter nonsense. The addition was neutrally-worded, reliably-sourced, and in no way contentious. You guys have fun here, because when there's this level of complete ownership of an article, I'm not interested. UnitAnode 19:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should refactor that comment, Unitanode. Maybe you need to take a step back from the article if you are going to accuse editors of ownership over a simple disagreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  No need to "refactor, Jessey. It's true. I've been on both sides of this fence, and the view from the other side (where the owners are reverting simply because they don't want it in the article) isn't very pretty. There was nothing inflammatory, nothing problematic, and nothing unsourced in my addition. The problem isn't with my material, it's with those who simply won't let anything resembling criticism into this article. UnitAnode 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like sour grapes to me. I can understand disappointment and the temptation to perceive bias, but it's best not to poison the well. Undue emphasis and marginal relevance are perfectly legitimate reasons for disagreeing with the addition of sourced content. Personally, I oppose overemphasis on polling across the board on all articles whatever the results seem to show. I'll take it on your word that you've withdrawn your proposal, so at this point there's nothing else to discuss and I suggest we chalk this one up as resolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources for proposed addition of material about the drop in approval rating

• "Obama's first year approval numbers are among the worst of post-World War II presidents".
• "'President Barack Obama's job approval rating continues to slide and it's evident the deterioration stems from voter unhappiness over domestic policy matters,' said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute."
• "By November, his job approval rating had dropped to 51 per cent, according to Gallup, with other polls putting the president below 50 per cent."

Those sources are just fine, but do keep in mind that there are between several hundred thousand to several million sources available in total about Obama, so that although most reliable sources are sufficient to for verifiability purposes, almost every issue that's worth putting in the article is going to have hundreds to thousands of sources available, so it pays to look through them, find the best ones, see if they disagree or portray things differently, and assess whether there's truly enough relevance and weight to mention, and if so, in which article(s). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say. It's clearly your (and a few others) article, so you make the call. UnitAnode 19:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How to describe polling

To my mind we already have more than enough information about poll numbers, and what we have is jumbled, out of context, and not terribly helpful for the biography. These sentences[15] added just moments ago are intended in all good faith, but I think it only compounds the problem. Verifiability and reliable sources do not seem to be the problem - I'll accept that the numbers are correct and well sourced. Rather, there are just too many numbers, there is no particular context or reason to include some but not others, or some dates and not others, and they are out of sequence. Right now we have:

1. First 100 days (Jan-April 2009): 59% to 69
2. August to November: -- note - 4 month gap, no reason given why any of these dates are significant
   1. 53%
   2. + dropped below 50% for first time in November -- note - no justification why 50% is anything special, or just number-gazing
3. Pew Research:
   1. February 63% -> December 49% -- note - backing up to February and extending into December, so not connected to other dates
   2. Comparable to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton -- comparable in what way, and what difference does it make?
   3. Not comparable to George Bush because George Bush was popular due to 9/11 - so what? This is an article about Obama

I really don't think the month-by-month numbers are of any use, nor are poll numbers just for the sake of having poll numbers. When poll numbers respond to events of the day that doesn't add anything either, because that's just what poll numbers do. If we're going to have popularity polls at all, I think we can do with one or two sentences, something like "Obama's approval rating, which started out at a relatively strong x% for the first few months of his presidency, declined through the first year and hit a low of 49% in December, which many commentators attributed to X and Y". We can figure out what X and Y are but they seem to be a combination of normal tendency of presidential popularity to wane after elections as the reality of a new president sets in, the particularly high expectations and some disillusionment with Obama not meeting them, the stubbornness of the recession, and/or the health care reform and opposition to it. That explanation will be very hard to get right and without bias because there are so many factors and it is subject to so much opinion, speculation, and politicking. Further, this is going to change every month or two so we would have to rewrite the paragraph on a near-constant basis because adding a new sentence every month won't work. Perhaps we should just leave the explanation off, or say that it was attributed to a number of factors and link to several good sources on what those factors might be. Any ideas? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is why I included the interesting analyses regarding how his trajectory seems to mirror Reagan's, as well as it being the largest post-WW2 drop. And that was reverted as well. UnitAnode 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think describing a trend (ie Feb to Dec) is more historically relevant than picking some abritrary number. Grsz¹¹ 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that any of these factoids -- Bush, Clinton, Reagan, a 50% marker, the largest drop (amidst unique circumstances, among a grand total of 11 presidents) -- is particularly relevant or significant to a biography of the president. Plus adding these new things to the first two disjointed reports rather than replacing them with a single account of what happened with the polls just makes it messy. What does any of this mean? Do you think that the fact of his trajectory mirroring Reagan's means anything in terms of explaining his presidency, his life, or what's happening around that, or is it just a statistical / graphics quirk like two clouds that both have a bump in the middle? I think telling the story rather than just reporting numbers may help, but what is the story? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what the sources say. The sources I found said the things I wrote, and in that context, it was interesting and informative, while also being neutral in both tone and content. UnitAnode 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then replace "do you think" with "what in your view does the weight of the sources show". Granted that it's well-sourced, neutral and interesting. Beyond that is it relevant and of appropriate emphasis? There are probably many thousands, tens of thousands, of sources describing poll numbers and opinions on what they mean. What argues why these particular sources have more to say on it than others? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You could say that about anything other than the basic facts in this article. UNDUE is about giving inappropriate weight to fringe-y theories, such as the birther crap, and Wright criticisms back during the campaign. It's not to be used to exclude interesting, relevant, and sourced material. UnitAnode 05:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The notion of undue weight is applied commonly to the relative prominence of facts vis-a-vis their importance to the notability of the article subject, just as the term "notability" is also used in a nontechnical sense with respect to the importance of facts within an article and not just the policy meaning of being the proper subject for an article. As you probably know we don't have a guideline that says when we should add or not add facts that pass the exclusionary thresholds of verifiability, BLP, NPOV, and so on. There is a near infinitude of facts about Obama, so which ones to note here? A cluster of terms - weight, relevance, noteworthiness - expresses the notion that the facts used in an article should shed light on the subject for the interested reader. In this way weight, in the sense of relative importance, is often used to decide that some facts are worth mentioning and others are not. There are matters of article organization, that some things are said elsewhere. Being interesting might be a reason to propose that something be added, but it is not enough to demand that it be included. Anyway, that's meta-talk. Here's the question. Assuming we only have a sentence or two, or maybe three (which is arbitrary - it could be ten), to describe the statistics and trends with respect to the (adult?) (American?) (voting?) public's answers to professional pollers on whether they approve of Obama or his job performance, and given that there are thousands of such polls and each poll generates dozens to hundreds of analysis pieces, which ones do we highlight and why? I think that absent a good reason, an unconnected factoid about his ratings does more harm than good for the reader's understanding by suggesting that something is more important or relevant than it is. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's both interesting and relevant. It's very important as well, since it illustrates the historicity of the drop, while ameliorating the "weight" of that by pointing out that (according to the pollster I cited) his trajectory very much mimics Reagan's. It's not an "unconnected factoid" any more than pointing out his worldwide poll numbers is. And it certainly wouldn't "harm" the "reader's understanding." I mean, seriously, come on. You could say that about anything that isn't the bare facts of his life and career that has been "picked" to be included in the article. Also, how in the world do you gather all of your interpretations from the text at WP:UNDUE? It seems more than a bit over-the-top to ascribe all that you do to it. It's not that complex, in reality. UnitAnode 07:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What is so important about how people answer the question of whether they approve of the president or his job performance, and what is the significance of someone being at the top or bottom of that list? In sports people keep records so breaking them seems important. Perhaps in weather too. But numbers wise there are only 11 post WWII presidents, and thousands of different metrics we can judge them by. Fewest or most bills signed, appointments confirmed or held up, days on vacation, news stories on family, foreign leaders greeted, on and on. By the odds each president will be at the historical top or bottom 2/11 of the time. And that's if we can even compare Obama, his life and times, to all the dead presidents, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower. It's an open question. I think it may be okay to simply say that Obama's popularity fell from X to Y in his first year, a greater percentage decline than any post-WWII president, but it would sure help to have some context. What is the meaning of saying that this looks like Reagan's curve? Why? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This last post from you is filled with OR. We don't measure why it's "so important", we write what the reliable sources say. And it IS historical, and the reason "only" 11 presidents (that is 25% of the total sample, you know) are included is because that's when they started measuring approval rating. The downplaying of the significance I'm seeing here is beginning to remind me of what I saw from the other side during the Bush presidency. As someone who voted for both men, I feel like I can be circumspect about this issue. It's important to both men because popular opinion has decided such things are important. Now, I really really REALLY have to go to bed! (How did it get to be effing 2:23 AM?!?) UnitAnode 07:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As editors we are more than mere transcriptionists to add willy-nilly to the encyclopedica every reliable fact we find. We don't just dump information from the reliable sources into the article without thought. We have to exercise discretion in the matter. Original research (or more properly, reasoning things through) is one way we figure that out and it is just fine for the talk page. Although reliable sources are another place to look for answers, so are common sense, reason, analysis, and discussion. We're never going to find a reliable source that says "Facts X and Y meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia [cite to New York Times]". Failing that we're left to our own devices for figuring out whether something is worth saying here. The public has demonstrated that it has an insatiable fascination for opinion polls, as well as weather charts, sports statistics, stock quotes, astrology, trivia, lottery numbers, and a lot of other pieces of uninterpreted data. In Japan blood type is a big deal. I don't think the frequency of mention is itself a complete reason for deciding it is important. Anyway, you are right that it is late in our parts of the world...- Wikidemon (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To me there's no question that there should be some discussion of Obama's popularity (or unpopularity) in this article, and the main way we get at that is, for better or worse, via polling. Unfortunately this is the kind of thing that will need to be updated steadily. I'd argue in favor of mentioning broad trends over time, and surely once Obama's presidency is over this is how we'll have to describe his polling numbers. At first blush I don't see a strong argument for comparing Obama's numbers to particular predecessors (Reagan or Clinton, etc.), though saying he was the most popular/least popular/middle of the pack in terms of post-WWII presidents could be useful. What we have right now is serviceable (though mentioning that Obama is less popular than Bush was at this point doesn't make any sense to me, why exactly is that relevant?), but I would recommend revisiting this issue a few weeks from now. Undoubtedly there will be a slew of pieces evaluating Obama's first year in office in the weeks ahead (probably starting with the New Year, though others will wait until January 20th), and most of these will mention approval ratings in a very general sense (which is what we want). I would suggest we use a couple of these to mention: A) The overall polling trends for the past year; B) Some of the common explanations for those trends (particularly the decline in popularity, which is certainly the key story at this point). I think this should be pretty easy to do, and I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to set this discussion largely to the side for now and revisit it in late January when we'll have more evaluative pieces to use as sources.

While it's technically a blog, perhaps the best site for political polling analysis (it's won web awards and is definitely considered an expert blog) is Nate Silver's site. Maybe he'll publish a piece evaluating Obama's approval ratings once we reach the one year mark. In the past he has discussed the link between Obama's economic and overall approval rating (i.e. it's strong) and on the relative non-importance of the 50% threshold (at least in terms of electoral prognosis). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't there other articles to give Obama's day to day polling ratings? I think it's appropriate to describe his coming into office with high ratings, and his dip back to 50%, but why on Earth is there a comparison to GWB's poll numbers? I completely understand the reference to Clinton and Reagan, seeing as both those Administrations took over during a recession(although not as great as one as Obama has, plus two wars), but GWB numbers went up after September 11th. His numbers also were declining to 50% before the terrorist attacks. The best alternative would be to not mention GWB, because the situations are not comparable.DD2K (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode's reversion to his rambling digression comparing various presidents definitely makes the article worse. If someone else would revert it to either the trimmed version I created before his/her reversion, or to the status quo ante version of a couple days ago, I would appreciate it. I don't want to create any appearance of direct reversion in my own edits, especially since I am the one that just made a more constructive merged version against Unitanode's somewhat bad faith edits. LotLE×talk 00:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume bad faith of Unitanode, you just have an editorial disagreement, and accusations of bad faith are not acceptable. I'm not saying Unitanode is blameless (POV tagging usually is not very helpful), but please try to depersonalize this.

I'm not reverting anything wholesale, but I have removed the Bush/Obama comparison. That's just completely arbitrary, and there's no reason why would we compare their first year poll numbers as opposed to, say, Bush's numbers when he left office and Obama's numbers for the past year (since they were both dealing with huge economic problems and two wars). I still am in favor of revisiting the discussion in the near future when "Obama's first year" articles come out, and I don't think it's worth getting in a big argument over what's there now in the interim, though probably others will feel differently. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Cut it out, Lulu. I didn't write that portion, and if you were paying attention at all you would know that. I have not edited at any point in bad-faith, and you will desist with such nonsense accusations immediately. This discussion was actually going quite well until you poked your head in with your "contributions." Great work. As for BTP's trimming of the Bush comparison, I have no problem with that at all. With regards to POV-tagging the article, it's my view that the tag got the now-productive conversations on this page started. While I'm sure others might disagree, that's exactly what such tags were intended to do. UnitAnode 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Use a sparkline?

It occurred to me in the edits over polling numbers that this is a rather relevant case for a Sparkline describing trends. It's a nice graphic device, one that I happened to be discussing with some friends for unrelated reasons, but might be somewhat radical as an article innovation. I wonder if editors have any opinion on this. Describing the details of a trend/graph in words is difficult, tedious, and easy to cast in a misleading way. Showing the actual literal data can clarify things (obviously, not as a complete substitute for words, but basically as a "graphical sentence" that presents such details). A full pull-out chart would be vastly too much space, but an inline "sparkline" might be right. LotLE×talk 01:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be informative to me. The nice little graphic provided by http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php would probably be my preference, but that's most likely because I haven't seen the alternative you mention. Arkon (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Another example of POV problems

The Peace Prize section almost completely ignores the criticism that Pres. Obama himself has taken during the process. It wasn't just the committee that took heat, it was Pres. Obama himself. Warranted or not, the criticism is real, and not having any mention of it in that section seems more than a bit unbalanced. UnitAnode 05:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True. I think we should stick to real criticism of the prize: criticism that the prize was too early or created too much of an expectation would be helpful. Criticism along the lines of calling it "the Nobel Not-Being-George-Bush Prize" is not helpful. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The article states "The award drew a mixture of praise and criticism from world leaders and media figures", so saying there's no mention is wrong. It could probably use a bit of elaboration, but 2009 Nobel Peace Prize exists as well, because of the fact that there was a lot of talk about it. Grsz¹¹ 05:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not as sure as you, but I see your point. I know that I've read the criticism that the prize was for not being Bush from BOTH sides of the political spectrum -- conservatives mocking, and liberals giggling happily :) -- so... I guess I'm just not as certain as you are that it shouldn't at least be mentioned. UnitAnode 05:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any criticism of Barack Obama for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize from any reliable source. In fact, I have seen conservatives(such as Pat Buchanan) state that criticizing Obama for waking up and being awarded the Prize is absurd. One of several issues I agree with Pat about. Also, I've seen nothing but praise for the way Obama has handled the issue, including his speech stating he does not deserve being in the same category as some past winners. I've seen this tried to be pushed on conservative blogs, and I still have not seen one decent reason for anyone to criticize Obama for being awarded the prize. It's not as if he campaigned for it, or nominated himself. I would like to see one reliable source criticizing Obama on this issue. DD2K (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> So, how many links to reports of such criticism in reliable sources to disprove this? Seriously, are you claiming you haven't seen the criticism reported upon in reliable sources. The source itself doesn't have to be criticizing him, just reporting about all the criticism that has been received. UnitAnode 06:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be better if this talk page were used for concrete proposals to improve the article. Do you have a specific source or criticism in mind? Of course this article is a bio, so a criticism of the group that awarded the prize should be elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here here! The subject of this thread might be totally valid, but lacking sources and a specific text-change proposal just means this thread will be an abstract discussion leading to nowheresville. If you start a thread advocating some change to the article, please state the specific change along with sources. We should immediately close threads that do not do this include this bare minimum effort as the abstract discussions are derailing all other work. --guyzero | talk 07:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, I am not talking about criticism of the award being awarded to President Obama, that falls into criticism of the committee, but criticism of Obama himself. And yes, it would have to be reliable sources making the criticism in this case, not citing Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or any other Obama critic that would criticize Obama for putting his right shoe on before his left. I'm all for mentioning that the Award was controversial, but much of that belongs in the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize article. I also think it was absurd that Obama was awarded the prize, but that's an opinion the NPP committee doesn't seem to share. So yes, there would have to be several reliable sources that specifically criticize President Obama in order to add it to the article.DD2K (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• People aren't even paying attention here. I'm talking about criticism that Pres. Obama himself has received based upon the award. Whether it's for not turning it down, or whatever, he has been criticized about it, and the criticism has been not-insignificant. There are other areas of concern, and after I've outlined them, perhaps after I wake up in the morning, I'll probably place the POV tag back on, until the concerns are resolved. UnitAnode 06:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this a few times on the page in recent weeks but nothing seemed to come of it. My sense is that there isn't a heck of a lot of controversy over the award because everyone, Obama included, acknowledges that Obama does not "deserve" the award for any concrete accomplishments. Most people seem to agree on the notion that the Committee was playing politics (not that they necessarily disapprove of that) by using the award as a reward and incentive for Obama to stay on track on various policy matters that the international community favors. The criticism as I see it comes from a few directions. One is that Obama hasn't achieved any peace - that is criticism without controversy, because I think everyone agrees. That in turn raises a question that has been dogging the President of late from across the political spectrum: just what has he accomplished? There is a sense that he is less decisive and strong than people expected. The other is that Obama is not as peace-like as some might have expected, something that seems to be coming more from the left than the right. I'm not sure we need to couch that in terms of criticism versus praise, but there is a perception that Obama is not a "soft" on military matters as people expected, a discovery that seems to please conservatives more than liberals even if the two political parties are each trying to spin it to their advantage. Is that a good summary? Is that what you were thinking? Assuming this, or something like it, is sourceable and can be said neutrally, should it be worked into the article and, if so, how? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What you said captures the gist of my thinking, but I also don't think that criticism he received about having even accepted it to begin with should just be brushed aside. But I really have to get to bed, and I have some article stubs to write tomorrow, as well as work stuff to take care of, so I might not get back to this issue right away. At least there's a bit of movement on the whole POV problems issue, so that's something to hang our hats on, I guess. UnitAnode 07:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, g'night and sleep tight. I would understand if one of us or both takes New Year's Eve off as well.  :) - Wikidemon (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly we have to discuss the fact that the awarding of the Nobel was "controversial", or whatever term we want to use—it was an enormous part of the story. The current section is not really acceptable in my view, at it only vaguely alludes to criticism rather than mentioning anything specific (excepting the word "premature"). I think it's important to point out that criticism came from across the political spectrum, with many conservatives and moderates (and indeed liberals) arguing that Obama had done nothing to warrant the award as yet. Additionally those opposed to the Afghanistan and/or Iraq wars (who were among Obama's strongest supporters), complained that Obama had done nothing to bring those conflicts to an end, and indeed escalated the war in Afghanistan. The "hasn't done anything" criticism has been more predominant than the "he's a war president" one, but I think both are worth mentioning and sourcing via news articles and maybe a couple of prominent Op-Eds expressing these opinions. This could be done in one or two sentences quite easily. If there are concerns about length, I would propose removing the sentence "Obama is the fourth U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the third to become a Nobel laureate during his term in office, and the first to be recognized in the first year of his presidency." These facts, while interesting, are not particularly relevant to Obama's life and are covered at 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, whereas the reaction to Obama receiving the Nobel has real impact on his public perception which is of course highly relevant to his life. I'll try to throw up some links to articles that could be used as sources later on today, but here are a couple for starters from the left end of the political spectrum (editor of The Progressive saying the Prize was undeserved, and a former Nobel Laureate making a similar argument—these are the kind of things that could be referenced in footnotes but not quoted directly in the article). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bigtimepeace that we should cover some of the notable criticisms. However, one thing we must make sure is that the criticisms are of Obama and not the Nobel committee and that the sources are reliable third parties that are not political commentators or blogs. I think we can find enough good references from sources with no political axes to grind that can help us add some notable criticisms to the section. I also agree, that we might want to remove that portion of text about the fourth, third, and first. Interesting info, but it does not really need to be in there. Brothejr (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just an addendum to my earlier comment, basically what I think we'll need to do is distill the essence of this section and to a lesser extent this one into a couple of sentences and cull a few reliable sources from those sections to dump into the footnotes here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to create a sandbox with the current language and refs in it so that we can work on it without disrupting the main page until the section is ready to be added. (Also to make it easier to edit/load due to main page size?) Brothejr (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Every event involving the president triggers criticism as a matter of course. How pertinent are all the comments from the peanut gallery? The Nobel section on reaction in the United States seems crufty, with little substance that tells a reader about the significance of the event. Imagining we're biographers and we're writing about this fifty years from now, what is truly relevant? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The "imagine you're a biographer" bit is generally how I try to think about articles like this, and to me any biographer of Obama discussing his Nobel award will spend a significant amount of space discussing the reaction. The story here has been (and I think will continue to be) the controversy (and outright surprise) surrounding the award, not the fact that he received it or the Nobel committee's rationale per say. Indeed every presidential event triggers criticism, but obviously the criticism over the Nobel was rather exceptional, particularly since it came from basically all quarters. It's a rather interesting moment in a person's life to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and then have the primary reaction be, "Dude, you don't at all deserve that" (61% of Americans took that view in one poll) and I think we have to cover it that way. I just don't think there's any way to mention the Nobel in this article without mentioning (with more detail than we have currently) the intense reactions (more so on the negative side) which it engendered. Again we can easily do this in a sentence or two, and we should definitely keep the focus on how people responded to Obama winning/accepting the prize rather than on criticism of the committee for awarding it to him in the first place (though obviously there was a lot of that). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If ultimately historians find that criticism had more merit than did the award, there could be some additional wrinkle (or even a major section if he turns into Idi Amin) mentioned in his biography. But at the moment, the criticism about Obama's prize isn't about Obama. That's the problem with so many of the criticisms here, it's all about people who are already looking for something lousy to say about him. If the context of his winning had been in yanking all the troops home, not just those from Iraq and Afghanistan but those stationed in the DMZ between the Koreas, and Japan, and Europe, etc., then I guarantee there would be more criticism than there is now.

I hate to tell you, the vast majority of people disagree with most awards, if they've ever even heard of any of these people, but when it's up to a committee, it has nothing to do with the haters. A lot of people didn't think Milli Vanilli deserved a Grammy, but that wasn't notable until the lip-syncing scandal. We need to ask ourselves about criticism, is this encyclopedically valid? When Cate Blanchett wins an Oscar do we print the reaction from, I don't know, Angelina Jolie fans? Do we write the demure equanimity when winners say "I can't believe you gave this to me when X was nominated," or "I don't think anyone can say who gave the best performance of the year"? No, because in a brief article, the point is simply that the committee saw fit to honor them that year.

We already do address the controversy with two sentences in the article. In fact, I count four sentences that mitigate the positivity of the award. Adding another sentence or two would be ridiculous overstatement. There is a satellite article to frame the issue. To give more coverage to the criticism of that point would be to give it more credence than the views of those who "get" the award on some level or other. It also fails to understand the context, insofar as that prize has gone to people who struck the committee as aspirational rather than for achievement, and there has been controversy in the past. This has a place somewhere at Wiki, and it no doubt does appear in the 2009 prize article. I'm not saying there should never be any more than there is about it here, I'm just saying that we keep missing the point, which is that we're supposed to present something that strikes the balance found in neutral, reliable sources. After the year-end round-ups, neutral, reliable sources aren't going to be talking about this unless some unforeseen devolution in those aspects of Obama that garnered the committee's votes shows him to be a fundamentally different person than the one they saw him as. For example, did Bush's comment against nation-building in one of the 2000 debates have any relevancy to a Wiki-length biography until it became necessary to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan? Even still, I'm sure it doesn't appear in his biography, despite his inability to handle the situation in either country after the initial invasion. Is that not ironic? Perhaps the point of the poor handling of the countries is notable without noting the irony of the statement, however, given the same space, weight and relevancy limitations we're working with here. Similarly, elsewhere we are noting that Bush's approval ratings soared after 9/11. That, too, needs to be seen in the context of history for what it is. Would it have been appropriate to talk about that approval rating in 2001? Of course not. It is what it is, which is pretty much the same thing as the Nobel thing — a statement of what we hope someone will be, and what a speech here, a junket there, and an attitude struck lets us tell ourselves may actually be.

As has been written about so many other issues, things must be weighted both in terms of relevancy to their bio and in terms of balance (or skew). This is best examined where details can be properly addressed and counterbalanced as appropriate, and again, that article went up the same day, and we link to it from here. That's enough. Nobody's writing about how the stock market is up 4,000 points since March lows and the Dow, Nasdaq and the S&P 500 are all up 20-40+% this calendar year. Nobody's writing about how the monthly unemployment figures had been worsening throughout Bush's last couple of years and stopped worsening the very month Obama took office, improving greatly since then. Nobody's writing about how every single major bank has now paid back the billions in TARP, with interest. Positive data about the stimulus didn't get any interest when it was a thread three or four weeks ago. Quite contrary to the accusations at this page, it's the positive information that doesn't get support at this page. The negative information draws several editors and we go on about it for dozens, even hundreds of posts. This isn't about being Polyanna, or sticking one's head in the sand, this is about objectively taking a clear-eyed look at what goes on at this page and realizing that the POV problems are not because there's too little criticism being discussed here, it's because there's too much.

And finally, if the preponderance of unbiased historians do give greater relative weight to this issue than do we, those will quite appropriately be the reliable sources we will use to justify further note here. That's the whole point about relying on such sources before we write that history ourselves. It's no fault of contemporaneous sources that the long view sees things differently — after other events tell whatever story they will tell. Abrazame (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Completely specious. By this reasoning, no criticism of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq should be allowed, until we have the verdict of history. That is patent nonsense, as is suggesting we ignore the criticism about the Nobel, until "historians" decide how important it was. We don't work that way here. UnitAnode 20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We work how we want to work. It makes considerable sense to pay attention primarily to opinions that are authoritative, influential, or at least from people who are involved. By this logic, we would heed criticism (though analysis is far more important) of Bush's decision to go to war in iraq from generals, international leaders, and former administration officials, and less to opposition party candidates. Because the decision to go to war involves a commitment of American lives, money, and reputation, the opinions of the citizenry are more relevant here than the winning of an award that is not American and involves no assertion of America's national agenda or will. I think the best news sources reflect this, and you're not going to see man-in-the-street interviews or polls getting a lot of coverage in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or the Economist. But where we start getting to the more breezy news sources like CNN or USA Today, they toss in lots of low-value stuff to gain audience interest and make it seem relevant to the average consumer. The extreme of this might be MTV news, which would have a B-list comedienne and a rock guitarist in the studio for their opinions on the sex scandals of the year. Back to the peace prize, looking back the past few decades we have Al Gore and the IPCC in 2007, Mohamed ElBaradei and IAEA in 2005, Kofi Annan and the UN in 2001, Arafat / Rabin / Perez in 1994, Mandela and de Klerk in 1993, Gorbachev in 1990, Dalai Lama in '89, UN peacekeapers in '88, Elie Wiesel in '86, Begin and Sadat in '78, and Kissinger in '73. These people have all been criticized from some quarters as unworthy, some for contributing more to war than peace. It would be interesting as a point of reference to see if their articles contain criticism notes on the occasion of the prize. This goes back to the comment that the prize is often awarded less in recognition for a great contribution or earnest effort for peace, and more as either encouragement or weighing in politically. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kissinger's article does not contain criticism that his prize was unworthy, even though several comedians (including Tom Lehrer) are reputed to have made the observation that the award killed satire. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Striking the right perspective—we call it neutral—is hardly specious, it's the central idea of an encyclopedia. The way we work is that we don't give more weight to a fairly unimportant criticism of a thing than we do to the actual thing. And the way we work is that we don't give undue weight to a subject that all seem to agree is not the culmination of decades of actions and hard work. It's a matter of fact that he got the award, and it's a matter of fact that these were the reactions. We've noted that, and linked at that point in the text to an article that I presume captures the greater detail in appropriate relative weight. That's how we work here. How we don't work here is spend more time talking about an inconsequential award than we do about the consequences of economic policies on the stock market, or the consequences of the TARP on the banks, or give a little more detail to help readers understand the unemployment situation. People are interested in the economy, they're interested in their jobs, they're interested in being secure from terrorism, the only people still interested in whether or not Obama's got enough criticism about the Nobel Prize he won are those who are trying to work against history in an effort to make it something worse than it is. As I said, if there turns out to be major, neutral criticism about war policy (and when in history has there not been) we can eventually find ways to deal with what is at the heart of the criticism in the actual context it belongs in, the war, and not the context Obama haters would like to see it in, chipping away at the prestige conferred by the opinion of five Scandinavians.

For you to extrapolate from my comment that "by (my) reasoning, no criticism of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq should be allowed" completely ignores that I actually said that once he screwed up the nation-building, it was reasonable to address that. You're equating the unfounded declaration and miserable bumbling of a war against the wrong country—which killed tens of thousands of people and cost trillions of dollars and the good faith of our own nation as well as the whole world—with half a dozen Norwegians making a sociopolitical statement, as they are wont to do, with a simple award? And then you call my reasoning specious and patently absurd.

I recommend reading that post again, with an open mind. Abrazame (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I almost forgot, Desmond Tutu in 1984, a very controversial figure. The award was widely criticized at the time, as was Tutu on the occasion of receiving it. His bio doesn't mention it, but does contain the slightly cryptic statement that the award was "a gesture of support for him and The South African Council of Churches", meaning that the Committee was playing politics rather than rewarding the peaceful. The bio is chock full of derogatory information: Tutu was criticized for many things throughout his career (perceived insensitive statements about Holocaust, role of Jews in apartheid, opposition Israel, politics within South Africa, opposition to Iraq war and anti-terrorist efforts, siding with resistance movements, to name a few), but as a primary matter, not specifically with respect to the prize. Of course, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the fact that this is a featured article and Tutu's is decidedly not, we can only go so far with comparisons. Turning back to Obama, the criticism by some liberals (and newfound respect among some conservatives) as being less of a pacifist than they had thought is more important with respect to his ramping up the war in Afghanistan than it is in connection with popular opinion in his own country over the Nobel Prize. The perceived lack of concrete accomplishment is more important to note in connection with the ongoing war in Afghanistan, ongoing terrorism threat, continuing lack of support from allies, trouble from North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia, problems in relations with Pakistan, etc. The real test, and final version of this article, is based on what happens in four years, not in the period of less than one year before the award. Until then any text we add about Obama's popularity or critical evaluations of his presidency is just a placeholder. I do agree that the 4th president to win / 3rd in office is mostly statistics-cruft, saying more about the award than Obama. The point about the award occurring earlier in his tenure than any other president is noteworthy (though the small sample size makes the significance suspect) because the sources cite this as a demonstration that he did not have any record from which the committee could have assessed his role as a bringer of peace, i.e. he won prospectively rather than in retrospect. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason we note 4th/3rd/1st is to give context for readers/editors who mistakenly suppose the Nobel Peace Prize to be a lifetime achievement award. Without spelling it out, we are noting that two other presidents won during their first terms, before the actual unfolding of events could have had a chance to prove the real peace effect, and Carter was the only one of the four who have now won to do so on the merits of decades of his work. This is a single sentence that gives the historical perspective of presidential Nobel Peace Prizes while implying that this is given for different reasons at different stages in the process. I don't suppose I should be surprised that they are missing the opportunity to digest that subtle point when they arrive at the article to demand a greater degree of criticism, rather than realizing that the amount already there is historically naïve, as the supportive responses regarding Kissinger, Tutu et al further illustrate. Something tells me that nobody asking for two more sentences of Nobel criticism would really want two neutral sentences of real context, however. Any takers? Abrazame (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You should probably take note that I don't give a damn what you think of my motives. UnitAnode 21:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) First it would be nice if everyone could take it down a notch, particularly by not casting aspersions on the motivations of other editors or speculating about what they do or don't want in terms of content. That's not remotely helpful, and there's no reason this cannot be a calm discussion with some disagreement.

I really don't agree with Abrazame's argument here (except for the point that there are more important things to discuss in terms of Obama's presidency). The fact is that right now we spend two paragraphs and eight sentences on the fact that Obama won the Nobel Prize. If, as we do in the Al Gore article, we only mentioned the prize in two quick sentences, then one could argue that there is no space to discuss reaction to it. But we already do discuss reaction to it, we just don't mention anything explicit, rather simply referencing a mixture of praise and criticism and something about it being "premature." That's not very helpful for future readers, and by adding about 20-25 more words we could actually say something about the reaction rather than just waving our hands at the issue.

If the argument is that we need to cut down the Nobel section as it is then fine (do we really need three sentences about the committee and their explanation for the award in Obama's BLP?), but I don't find credible the notion that discussing the award, Obama's acceptance, the committee's rationale, and the general idea that there was some kind of mixed reaction is all well and good (that's what we have now), but if then we say "some thought it was an excellent example of an "aspirational" Nobel Prize, while critics argued that Obama had done little to earn the award, or even worked against global peace efforts by escalating a war in Afghanistan" (or whatever) somehow that's a disaster. If we cover in any slight detail the story of Obama's Nobel in this article then we have to mention the controversy in at least some detail since it's mentioned in literally almost every story on this topic. Finally this is a sui generis situation (sitting U.S. president in today's media world receives a Nobel his first year in office), so I don't think comparisons to other articles are particularly useful. I'd bet a hundred dollars that no Nobel award has received as much attention as this one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Begin/Sadat and Perez/Rabin/Arafat awards both drew a *huge* amount of commentary at the time. If we mean to say that Obama's award, like others given world leaders, was given relatively early in their term for aspirational rather than retrospective reasons, I think we can say that directly and attribute that to a body of authoritative commentators, because we don't have enough room in the article to build the case for that out of statistics and selected quotes. I think Bigtimepeace's approach is okay with the exception of the final clause, "..or even...", because that shifts the article's voice towards narrating an analysis rather than covering sources. Also, it is not just "critics" of Obama or the award who made the comment about lack of objective achievements. Likewise, it's not just supporters of him or the award who say it's aspirational. Many people see the Committee trying to reward a leader for saying the magic words that please the international community, trying to give that leader legitimacy for doing so, and/or encouraging the leader to follow through with his rhetoric, and they don't like that one bit. So these are not necessarily arguments of praise or criticism, just observations and opinions. Put another way, people's belief about what Obama was doing to deserve the award and why the Committee decided to give it to him is somewhat orthogonal to their happiness or unhappiness over it. I guess that's my fundamental point. Why don't we just cover this as encyclopedic information about the award and what it meant, and not filter it through the lens of whether that is criticial or supportive of Obama? If you're covering the Great Salt Lake, you don't say that the water is pure but some critics argue that it is too salty, that 54% of Utah Residents expressed a lack of confidence in the lake's ability to withstand a protracted drought. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

<---undent

So now we're back to "let's not write anything about the criticism"? If we "just covered" the whole article as an actual encyclopedia, it would look much different. But we're not made of paper, so we have much more flexibility to be informative and interesting than a standard, paper-based encyclopedia does. Also, we get that you don't like polling numbers. But the fact remains, they're how we now measure our presidents. That's just the fact of the matter. UnitAnode 22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What I like or don't like is not pertinent here. It's not encyclopedic to add criticism and praise just for the sake of adding criticism and praise. Unless it actually affects the subject of the article, public statements of support or opposition and numerical abstractions of popular sentiment are at best interesting without being informative. Polls are not how presidents are evaluated in any deep sense, they're how political parties fine-tune their strategies on a day-to-day basis, and how the nightly news fills air time on a budget. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If we accept your premise (polls are irrelevant), then we are left with only one option: remove all mention of the polls that showed Pres. Obama as widely popular worldwide, as well as any reference to the Gallup polls showing his early popularity as well. Since I do not accept your premise (as I'm trying to be pragmatic and not idealistic here), we should present a balanced view of what the polls have said (and are saying) about Pres. Obama. Like it or not, and right or not, that is one major way that post-World War II presidents are measured. Leaving it out of the article because our opinion is that it's "not how presidents are evaluated in any deep sense" simply makes the article look silly. UnitAnode 22:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a premise, a variable. If a poll is relevant then it carries more weight. If it is just a scorecard, no. Same as any statement proposed for inclusion in the article. Neutrality is not achieved through purposeful balancing of positive and negative to create an ideal blend. Purposefully biasing things towards a perceived ideal middle ground is certainly an act of bias. We don't need a high poll number to balance a low one or vice-versa. The current description of polling is, as discussed above, disjoint and without context. It would make sense to replace all of that with one sentence, perhaps two, describing the arc of the polls and any major causes or implications. That is all provisional because a year from now it is unlikely to matter. I would argue that it makes articles a lot more informative and intelligent, and they will be regarded as such by serious people, if we stay light on trivia, statistics, popularity measures, pundit cruft, and other factoids. Polls and opinions are, as I said, mainly relevant to political tacticians on the one hand, and as infotainment on the other. Some people follow them like sports statistics. They become very relevant just before an election, or in telling the story about how a policy proposal was defeated after public opposition. As facts about article subjects they're a kind of raw data that means little without interpretation. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to stick to one topic per thread, the thread on the polling issue is still open above (indeed one of you might want to move the last few comments up there). As to the Nobel issue, the wording I "proposed" above was extremely rough (just an example) and not something I would actually want to say verbatim. The precise wording is not particularly important to me so long as it makes reference to specific reactions to the award and includes the fact that there was significant criticism/negative reaction/whatever we want to label it. I don't quite get the Salt Lake analogy or the suggestion that we not filter response to the Nobel through a praise/criticism lens. Some people were happy about the award and some thought it sucked, and in some fashion we should mention that, even if only implicitly, because it was probably about half of the story and we are devoting a whole subsection to the Nobel in this article as of now. I do agree it is not advisable to refer to "critics" or "supporters" of Obama since once could be a supporter and criticize the Nobel, or vice versa. It might be best to start thinking about specific language at this point since discussing this in the abstract likely makes differences of opinion seem larger than they in fact are. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What about mentioning the Gallup poll from USA Today stating 61% of Americans thought the Nobel undeserved?[16][17]

That way, instead of relying on a quote from a major figure, you're showing overall what public consensus was. Perhaps this could be combined in the section with a few quotes from major public figures on the subject. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really add anything of substance to the subject area that 85% of Republicans didn't like it and 59% of Democrats did...not what I'd call a shocking revelation there. I'd rather see mentions of criticism from major figures, though that is really what the seprate Nobel prize article is for. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

According to a Quinnipiac University poll, only 26% thought the Nobel deserved. 66%% thought it undeserved, with 48% of Democrats thinking it deserved to just 8% of Republicans.[18] Do you have a source for the 85% of Democrats number? The only poll I can find with similar numbers is a reference to the Gallup poll saying 76% of blacks thought it deserved to just 27% of whites[19], and a CNN statement that 70% thought he should go accept it even though not deserved.[20]

The only way I could see both results making sense is if many Democrats approved of the decision even though they did not think he deserved it. Also, I found the USAToday reference to the Gallup poll.[21] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

On controversial articles, perhaps we can advance the dialog thusly:

Post on the talk page what we would like to post in the article. Then, everyone opposed to the edit, list what that edit would need in order to pass muster. The opposition should not merely list the rules-based defects, but rather, should post rules-satisfying solutions to the defects. This goes the same for both "pro-Obama" and "con-Obama" edits. And by this method, we would be honestly assuming good faith in that we would be seeking to help each editorial voice be heard 7390r0g (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably won't work as some edits don't belong in the article no matter how you modify them, period. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if they have no reliable 3rd party sourcing, they should never be included, period.

Otherwise, no reason exists for excluding them, correct? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There can be many other reasons, such as lack of notability, undue weight, etc. For example, if we find 50 articles saying that Barack Obama was friends with a 3 year old named Steve when he was 5 years old for about 4 days, it isn't notable or worth putting in this article unless that somehow had an impact on his life (like Steve was hit by a car, and Obama made a life long effort for car safety). It doesn't matter how many sources if it is just "was friends with Steve for a few days." It wouldn't belong. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But if those 50 articles included sources such as CBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times, FactCheck.org, and the Chicago Tribune, Wikipedia would be obligated to provide the coverage anyway, particularly if it occurred over a period of years, rather than just a short time period (aka Recentism). In other words, the heavy news coverage would imply relevance to Barack Obama. I think you're making the same point I am, that Recentism is involved as well, and that coverage needs to be over a period of years ideally to show controversy, not just a few months. However, even then it may still be relevant if it was a major enough event. If it's heavily sourced enough, then we shouldn't be asking whether it's relevant enough, but finding a place in the article for it to be put, and if there is no place, then making one. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But as you've been told numerous times before, that place already exists, and the info is there.  Frank  |  talk  15:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the result is for example, with the partial birth abortion controversy, that a controversy is mentioned in such child articles for Barack Obama (at least a dozen articles on Wikipedia in all) but not the main Barack Obama article which has been a featured article and the only one that really gets read. I would guess the traffic differences for the main page and child articles are drastic to the extent the main page might get more traffic than all others combined. At any rate, the main page should be accurately portraying the information on child articles, and if the result is that controversies get mentioned on child articles but not the main article, the issue of bias may need to get raised in relation to the main article.

For example, the 1st archive for the Barack Obama talk page shows that the issue of bias on this article was getting raised even then - not only was it being criticized in 2004 of "reading like a commercial"[22] that "could be something issued from his PR. department"[23] but was also a featured article during the 04 senate race between Keyes and Obama, leading 4 different users to raise the objection that it was giving unfair advantage to Obama.[24]

My point is that given the heavy criticism in the past of how this article displays controversy (and there have been dozens of users) and how much discussion this article had in the past on which controversies to show (there's plenty just in the first 10 pages of archives - which I've now read) we should be especially careful on this page to be sure that controversy is not covered up and kept hidden on other pages. There were mentions of Obama controversies in the text of the page, both for partial birth abortion and Rezko, that at some point got removed. I am just starting on the 2008 archives but would like to know why all the mentions of these controversies got suddenly deleted. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? What you are basically saying is that you believe that the "controversy" over what you call "partial birth abortion" is not getting enough attention because the sub-articles in which this faux controversy are mentioned don't get as much traffic as this one? That's as clear an admission as I've ever seen that you are POV-pushing. Your goal is not to improve the article, but to try to give your POV a wider audience. That's disgraceful. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have to bring this up if your bias did not result in all major controversies getting pushed into footnotes and child articles because your POV pushing is so extreme that it removes all previous mention of the controversies that DID exist on this page up until at least 2008. Before you and Lulu of the Lotus Eaters came in sometime early in 2008, the article did mention his controversy on voting present on abortion bills and the controversy of anti-abortion groups protesting against his Rick Warren interview.[25] I haven't yet figured out who was responsible for removing what had earlier achieved consensus for addition to the article, and was a part of it for many years, but I'm getting closer to narrowing down the time frame it had to have happened it in, early 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzyehoshua (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no controversy. This is pure fantasy. Take your anti-abortion rhetoric to the blogosphere and stop wasting Wikipedia's time. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You don't like my 'rhetoric'. We've established that. -.^

The bottom line is this:

• From 2005-2008 on this article either the controversy over Obama's present votes was mentioned in the State Legislature section[26] or Keyes' criticism of him about abortion was mentioned in the Senate Campaign-General section.[27] Not until 2008 was this information, which previously had not undergone opposition, suddenly removed.
• At least one dozen different Wikipedia articles already reference the controversy (Political positions of Barack Obama, Barack Obama social policy, United States Senate career of Barack Obama, The Case Against Barack Obama, Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008, Alan Keyes, William R. Haine, Jill Stanek, James Dobson, Nat Hentoff, Gianna Jessen, and The Committee for Truth in Politics).
• The controversy has been covered in the media by such prominent organizations as CBS,[28] the Chicago Tribune,[29] the Washington Post,[30] the Wall Street Journal,[31] the National Review,[32] FactCheck.org,[33] Time Magazine,[34] ABC News,[35] FOX News,[36] Newsweek,[37] the New York Times,[38], and the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).[39]
• The bill Obama voted against was the Illinois version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that became the most prominent abortion-related bill in decades, and as an act of government behind only Roe v. Wade in prominence here in the United States. The bill outlawed the practice of intact dilation and extraction in which children are killed while being delivered and in some cases survive only to be left to die - which fact played a key role in the testimony and ultimate Congressional decision.[40] Obama was the only Illinois state senator to speak out against the bill on the senate floor, but for years would mis-represent his vote until his campaign was finally forced to concede the lies.[41]

I simply do not understand how you can objectively deny that this is either not prominent or poorly sourced. You can keep calling it rhetoric all you want, but objectively, any controversy surrounding a public figure that has this sort of evidence and sourcing ought to be referenced prominently on their main Wikipedia article. The fact that you are still so adamantly opposing it does not speak well for your impartiality. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I will however say this: I noticed the Rezko controversy is at least now mentioned in the article. I don't remember it being there before, was that added recently? I am only on archive page 10 so far, and already have found at least 20 different users who complained because for a long time it was just mentioned as a footnote (#139 as of July 2007) with all the info and sources for it hidden down in the footnote. That had a LOT of people complaining.

[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]  ::::::::Again, those are just from the first 10 archive pages, and if they're any indication, this is easily one of the most controversial pages on Wikipedia. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the discussions you are referring to are the result of a massive farm of sock puppets trying to shove their POV into the article too. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely not true. Hempbilly and TDC had some sockpuppets I know, but many other users were opposed that were not sockpuppets. User:Jbpo, User:Gzkn, User:Flatterworld, User:Zz414, User:I'mDown, User:bbatsell, User:Ogeez, User:Eisenmond, User:Peterpressurepeterp, User:Mbc362, User:Nuclearj, User:Jogurney, User:HailFire, User:Tvoz, User:69.149.249.41, User:Decoratrix, User:Plumbing, User:Bjewiki, User:Gloriamarie, User:204.58.248.33, User:Lawrencekhoo, User:Loonymonkey, User:Steve Dufour, User:Johnreginaldsmith. All of them on those pages at one point or another supported inclusion of the Rezko material in some way on the page and agreed it was a controversy that needed inclusion on the Barack Obama page.

EDIT: I removed unbased assertions comment, which was defensive because of your comments about sock puppets and rhetoric. Will try to tone it down. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I supported the inclusion of some Rezko stuff too, but not the massive amount demanded by the POV-pushers and their socks. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I saw, they just wanted it in the text of the article rather than hidden down in the text of footnote 139. It had been enough in the news, particularly the Chicago Tribune, for them to have had a good case for it too, I thought. Some, like the TDC and Hempbilly clones (I forget if either of them was the Dexter1x one) were annoying and being too pushy, but there many good users who simply wanted the article to show a major controversy fairly, rather than in a footnote. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the suggestion by 7390r0g by the way. I have been reading over the old archives for this talk page (may make a discussion on this later when research complete) and found similar cooperation when confronting past controversies. For example, there was an old thread, "The exhaustive controversies survey" where each user stated whether they thought a controversy notable or not, and why.[56] HailFire was one of the original big-time editors and though very critical of controversy suggestions, he helped create compromises so that the controversies on partial birth abortion and Rezko were both included in the article (the latter which even the normally anti-controversy Tvoz agreed with).[57][58]

Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the old controversy discussions. Because of constructive discussions like this, for many years there was mention of such controversies on the Obama page. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It appears that sometime around 2008 all the mentions of controversies on Obama's page were removed. I haven't figured out why yet, but hope to learn so I can relay that information here as I learn more from the archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzyehoshua (talk • contribs) 14:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, please do not rehash the history of this page. For the umpteenth time this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not editor behavior, much less historical inquiries of editor behavior. Most of the advocacy to add criticism and controversy during 2008 and early 2009 was indeed done by families of sockpuppets that took many months and dozens of trips to the administrative boards to uproot. There was also a protracted arbitration case, and some follow-up actions to that, resulting in restrictions against some of the editors. Article probation arose in the early part of this mess in response to some of the problems. That may have hardened the resolve of the legitimate editors and overshadowed what few good faith attempts there were to expand material they considered critical of OBama, but a rock solid lasting consensus emerged among the legitimate editors on a number of points including not having a criticisms section, not evaluating content changes as matters of adjusting the perceived pro and anti-Obama bias of the article, and the level of treatment given some of the election-year campaign issues. Some like Rezko and Wright, and prior drug use, were mentioned at a level deemed appropriate given their overall importance to Obama's life and not just as attack issues raised by a sometimes desperate losing political campaign. Others, particularly conspiracyt heories like his supposedly being a Muslim, "palling around with terrorists", and the birther conspiracy theories, did not seem to be credible issues about Obama's life, and were therefore relegated to other articles where they would be more relevant. After all of the trouble dealing with this there has not been any appetite to re-open the issue, and all of these things are if anything less relevant now that the presidential election is water under the bridge. Re-opening one and two year old process issues, particularly given an arduous and antagonistic history that has already been adjudicated by ArbCom, is not going to be productive here. As a number of other editors have been requesting, if there are specific content proposals we can discuss them on their own merits. I have no desire at all, and it will probably shut down consideration of any of these, to couch this in terms of trying to put a more anti-Obama spin on the article or assailing the editors who have been active here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if only to show there has been a lot of discussion on the issue of what controversies to include (despite some still continuing to claim there are no controversies), I think the discussion is useful. For example, as recently as May 2008,[59] the article did contain information about Obama's controversial present abortion votes, his Reverend Wright association, and opposition by 18 pro-life groups to his interview with Rick Warren that have now been excluded from the article. Starting in May 2008 with the removal of mention of his controversial abortion votes, and ending in mid November 2008, all evidence of these controversies had been removed.[60] I found evidence that as early as April 2008 Scjessey was attempting to remove mentions of the Wright and Rezko controversies from the page.[61][62] I also found there evidence a user named TheGoodLocust had supported a similar addition to mine about Emil Jones making Obama a U.S. senator through appointing him head over key legislation, but Ubiq wanted it watered down so it did not mention his legislative record had been built in one year. Another user, Grsz11, also denied the need for mentioning that vital fact, but at least remained relatively civil and reasonable during the conversation.[63] Scjessey again attempted removal of controversies, asserting they violated Wikipedia guidelines on BLP, WEIGHT, NPOV, and RECENT, and that he had overwhelming consensus. Here, him and user called Andyvphil and Kossack4Truthlocked horns over the subject.[64][65] As a result of Scjessey working with an admin named Josiah Rowe it appears the tables began turning in April against mention of controversies.[66] I am only looking at April 2008 and expect the further months will reveal much more about who else was involved here.

It should be pointed out that from 2004-2008, the following users had supported mention of the present votes on abortion bills in the article:

• User:J8427 July 2006, Archive 2[67]
• User:Bobblehead April 2007, Archive 8[68]
• User:Dce7 April 2007, Archive 8[69]
• User:Pic82101 April 2007, Archive 8[70]
• User:HailFire March 2007, Archive 8[71]
• User:jpgordon March 2007, Archive 8[72] (supported if sourced reliably)
• User:Ernham March 2007, Archive 8[73]
• User:8.11.254.188 March 2007, Archive 8[74]

Sometime in May 2008 the edit was removed. Why I don't yet know. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is called "progress", where a shitty article full of innuendo and fringe gutter-sniping is revised into a reliably-sourced, well-written, and neutrally-voiced feature article. Trawling through 4+ years of past edits hoping to return the article back to some broken former state doesn't exactly strike me as a productive use of time. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tarc above, searching 4+ years of archives to find someone who agrees with you doesn't really help your case. One of the few you could find has been banned for 2+ years, he's not really a good reference anyway. The state of this article in 2006 has absolutely no bearing on the current status. As I'm sure you've noticed, there have been some pretty major changes in the life of the subject since then. Dayewalker (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, Kossack4Truth turned out to be a sock puppet of a notorious puppeteer who plagued this topic for years, forcing real editors into endless debates and meaningless arguments. You have clearly stated, Jzyehoshua, that your intention is to try to get various faux controversies (with particular attention being given to this fictional abortion controversy) into the article. That is what we call agenda-driven editing, or "POV-pushing" in some circles, and it is totally unacceptable. We are here to build a project, not make a point. Shameful. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Years of past edits without anyone complaining about the changes, I might add. 4+ years where the article already was a feature article as early as 2004, and being referenced in the press during 2006. I think you'd have a hard time portraying it as being considered as horrible as you just made it sound. I didn't find many because after the inclusion of the material in 2005, there wasn't really any controversy surrounding it. Few brought it up requesting the addition of more material and I'm not sure anyone created a complaint thread about it pre-2008 before Scjessey and Lulu of the Lotus-eaters simultaneously arrived on the scene. Feel free to try finding any objections to it but from what I saw, it was mostly just ensuring that good sources were being used. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about, and I take great exception to the fact that you have repeatedly implied that I have collaborated inappropriately with other editors. The real problems with this article began as soon as Obama announced his candidacy for POTUS, whereupon it was besieged by various groups of POV pushers, including racists who were clearly apoplectic at the notion that the US might have an African-American POTUS. Every conceivable negative aspect, however insignificant, was furiously and repeatedly debated. You can get some idea of the problems by perusing Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions, and these don't include the myriad problems prior to article probation. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's heeding my request to avoid discussions about editor behavior here, but if you must know that log captures perhaps 2/3 of all the sanctions brought under article probation during its primary period from August 2008 through the announcement of the Arbcom decision in June 2009. After that I lost interest in keeping up so the hit rate is closer to 1/4 or 1/3. The disruption did quiet down considerably after March or April, 2009, that trend is real. What the log doesn't show are the dozens of trips back and forth to the administrative notice boards, particularly AN/I, with the socks growing increasingly adept at torpedoing requests to deal with them by launching counter-accusations, making it look like two sides fighting, appeals to anti-authority skepticism, gaming discussions, etc. The socks were nearly all trying to add Republican party-line material (Wright, Rezko, Ayers, affirmative action poster child) and sometimes conspiracy theories (citizenship, Muslim, communist sympathizer, academic fraud) about Obama, although at least one of those defending the article from the onslaught was found to be a sock as well. For one several-month stretch farfetched negative campaign memes (e.g. Obama's political career was "launched" from Bill Ayers' living room) were hitting Wikipedia as fast as they appeared on the blogs and partisan press, well before they found attention, if any, among mainstream pundits. The socks had some common refrains, accusing liberal-minded editors, "Obama fanboys", and "campaign workers" of article ownership, "whitewashing" and "scrubbing" (they liked those words) the article of criticism, turning into a "hagiography" (they liked that word too), trying to have dissenting editors banned, and of course POV bias. No doubt some non-sockpuppets, mostly editors new to the Obama pages or new to Wikipedia entirely, were sympathetic to their arguments and/or mistook the volume of bogus edits for an actual body of opinion among legitimate editors that the Obama article was biased or controlled by a liberal cabal. Those suckered into siding with the socks expressed surprise (which may have been genuine to the extent they were legitimate accounts, something that has not usually the case around here) that they were summarily ignored or their intentions questioned when they repeated the opinions and proposals that the socks had been promoting. The issue came to a head this past March when one of the more obscure sockpuppets, an activist journalist best known here until then for trying to promote himself by adding accolades to his own Wikipedia entry, provoked a block by edit warring some birther claims, then wrote an account of the experience in which he claimed to observe that the Obama article was controlled by pro-Obama manipulators, without admitting that he himself had engineered the incident he was writing about. Editing volume on the talk and article page increased by a factor of ten for two days, most of it disruptive, until the article was locked down. These events led indirectly to the Arbcom case, although the committee missed the boat by conducting only a superficial analysis of only several editors' contributions over a several-day period after the incident, without looking at how editors were dealing with the incident itself or the many sock farms that had been active earlier. That is all water under the bridge - as long as the article is stable and the socks don't return - and having wasted so much time on it, the veteran editors aren't really interested wasting any more. I hope that begins to explain why people are not very eager to entertain for perhaps the fiftieth or sixtieth time claims that the article needs to have a more negative spin, or that the article has a history of WP:OWN. It doesn't matter if you are liberal or voted for Obama (yet another of the socks common refrains), that should not and does not get anyone a free pass around here. Trouble is trouble. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican party, or the Democrat party, for that matter, had call center like computer centers set up for their staff to try changing this site. Just look at Wikiscanner, apparently both sides aren't all that clean. However, what I am is saying is, I don't think this was a problem before the 08 election. If you look at the first 12 pages or so of archives, it shows there was generally a pretty nice atmosphere on the board. And there was very real concern about controversies getting enough coverage, and not just by some socks either. However, editors were able to talk things through, hold surveys, and generally reach consensus about including the controversy. And yes, there was support for including the partial birth abortion controversy, though it was not discussed nearly as much as the Rezko article on here.

I read some of the arbcom case already[75][76]. It looks like the issue has continued also on the Sarah Palin article and now a Climategate article where an arbcom is ongoing (I think someone named Caspian is involved there too).

However, I wouldn't have to bring up this old controversy stuff if people didn't keep trying to refuse arguments on the basis of "there's no consensus" or "it's not a controversy". My primary reason for bringing it up is to show that yes, there were users who considered this a controversy, and who did want it in the article. And what's more, they did so with less sourcing to back it up than I'm now providing. Regardless of what happened before, or what my or anyone else's political beliefs are, the bottom line should be whether or not the material I want included has the 3rd-party sourcing it needs for inclusion. This whole consensus argument stuff against considering the sources though is what requires me to look back in the archives to show there was for a long time consensus without opposition for its inclusion, that this has been an issue, and that why it was removed should be an issue. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just got to the section Scjessey referred to. While there was a lot of controversy I'm seeing over him not wanting controversial mentions of Rezko/Wright in the article when he first came in, I will concede that I just saw evidence he made a good-faith attempt to work a compromise showing controversial aspects of the Wright mess going on in the media.[77] Also, I saw from that archive discussion that User:Andyvphil had a well-written edit but was trying to push WAY too much on the Wright issue into the article (3-5 paragraphs) when he should've tried settling for a few sentences. I will have to read more into the archives to figure out what was going on. I am only up to March 2008 right now. However, I do think there is controversy surrounding Obama that should be mentioned in the article. I have not been saying that needs to be via long essays, just that it should be mentioned at all to ensure all prominent views are shown in the article. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)