Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 60

Notable criticisms and controversies
There aren't any criticisms or controversies discussed in this article although it contains a lot of fluff (and we can probably remove the listing of every foreign leader he ever shook hands with now that the elections is over). And there are no clear links to any of the controversy articles that have somehow been allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Do these violations of our NPOV policy bother anyone? Should readers have access to a range of perspectives and differing opinions as our guidelines indicate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "There aren't any criticisms or controversies discussed in this article although it contains a lot of fluff"
 * That is your personal interpretation. Legitimate criticisms have been properly woven into the text, after much discussion and consensus-building.
 * "there are no clear links to any of the controversy articles"
 * Most of the articles you describe are low quality POV forks conceived by agenda-driven editors.
 * "Do these violations of our NPOV policy bother anyone?"
 * Please identify these violations, because I cannot see any.
 * Do you have a proposal for improving the article besides claiming it violates policies? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have a suggestion. I think notable criticisms and controversies should be included or linked to clearly from this article so they are accesible to readers. I'm open to suggestions on how best to achieve this. The ariticle as written violates our NPOV standards as there is no indication that Obama has been criticized or that he's been involved in controversies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a current events article, it is encyclopedic. Doing something controversial is not the same as having controversies, the latter of which implies impropriety (i.e. closing Guantanimo is controversial, where as an affair would be a controversy). Criticisms are subjective and without proper passage of time, it's hard to determine if any criticism will become permanent or is well-founded. Again, this is not a current events article, so until some time has passed, there is little need for a criticisms section until the outcome of "controversial" decisions can be determined and more permanent criticisms can be levied in an objective context. DKqwerty (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (after ec) - What notable criticisms and controversies are you referring to, and how would you go about adding them and/or linking to them without violating WEIGHT, NPOV, BLP and other policies? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I indicated, I'm open to suggestions.
 * I would start by providing a link to a list of Obama articles. Many notable topics aren't wikilinked anywhere in the article. Expecting readers to search for topics they don't know exist seems far fetched. This would help provide navigable access to all sorts of articles that readers may not notice reading through this article that is full of wikilinks. It has oodles of templates and categories at the bottom, so that's not useful to the average reader.
 * Alternatively, I've suggested including mentions of disputes such as over Gitmo/ enhanced interrogation/ torture and fiscal issues with links to where it's covered more thoroughly.
 * Alternatively I've suggested a criticism section or a paragraph about the most notable issues that have been raised.
 * Alternatively I've suggested an article about opposition to Obama.
 * At some point, attacking me and my suggestions needs to stop, and alternatives need to come from those violating our policies by maintaining an article that is not NPOV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have full faith in your suggestions, and agree with you whole heartedly, but we must remember one rule of history that is being forgotten. The victors get to write the history books, even if the information is wrong.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (after ec) - Mentioning Gitmo/torture here would violate WP:WEIGHT and be an example of recentism in this biography. Obviously a "criticism section" would be rejected for the reasons (poor writing, violates NPOV, etc.) often discussed here (and mentioned in the FAQ). An article about "opposition to Obama" would clearly be a non-neutral POV fork. Templates and categories already provide links to articles in an appropriate manner, and there is no need to shine artificial light on articles about controversies that are largely manufactured by political opposition. I'm not aware of the attacks or the policy violations you mentioned. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice how NPOV is always a violation on the Obama page, but say on Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or dare I say it, George Bush, NPOV never seems to be a problem.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please use this talk page for discussing improvements to this article. If you have complaints about the enforcement of WP:NPOV in those other articles you have listed, I suggest you bring it up on their associated talk pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop objecting to every suggestion to fix this article. Our Obama coverage needs to abide by our policies. Gitmo/ torture and fiscal issues are certainly not recent issues, please don't make false statements. Including notable criticisms does not mean we include poor writing. Including differing perspectives is required, and censoring and eliminating them completely violates NPOV. Failing to include notable content and censoring content is totally inappropriate and violates the integrity of Wikipedia and several policies. There are many list of articles, so your objection to those in favor of templates and categories is also a non-starter. Please suggest a route we can take to address and fix the problems or let others do so. It's not helpful to misrepresent policy and suggest that you haven't been made aware of these policy violations when I've already discussed them with you and pointed you to the policy pages. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am free to object to any and all suggestions as I see fit, provided I do not do so tendentiously. You are making suggestions for "fixing" and "addressing" problems which I do not think exist, and many of your ideas conflict with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have claimed that this article "violates NPOV" and I have rejected that claim. Your suggestions of "censorship" are without merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) What about a template to ensure that any Obama topic can be conveniently reached from this page?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are boxes/templates already at the bottom of the page. These boxes/templates range from his presidency, early life, to his public image.  Mainly this topic/thread is a rant complaining that they would like more criticisms in the main article or make them more obvious for readers so they can get the "dirt" on him.  Otherwise, there are already valid major criticisms worked into the article.  Anything else falls into the realm of campaign politics and republican gripes.  Brothejr (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming that all Obama articles can be reached from there, I think there's no problem. If they would like greater prominence for some articles, they need to gain consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck, there is even a Barack Obama Wikiproject. Brothejr (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP revert
I've just reverted edits by under the auspices of Wikipedia's policy on living persons because it was pure original research. The "lets see if we can include" edit summary appears to indicate CoM was expecting the controversial edit to be reverted. This seems deliberately disruptive to my mind, particularly as CoM has just restored the controversial addition (also without talk page discussion) in what appears to be a determined attempt to begin an edit war.-- Scjessey (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * well good for him. Its about time that this article became more balanced.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there some reason the anti-"pro Obama" crowd decided they weren't going to use Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox? I'm asking because, since its creation 10 days ago (by another editor, as noted reams of posts above this), there has been merely argument on policy matters punctuated by the occasional sudden POV edit-cum-edit war.  On a related note, there seems to be more effort to add presidency-related issues to the bio than there are to the Presidency of Barack Obama article.  I would think these things were notable first to his presidency and second to his biography.


 * I'm not quite sure of Jojhutton's point in the prior section, but Hannity and Limbaugh were hired to argue their personal points of view/ideologies, to people predisposed to hear them. George Bush and Barack Obama were hired to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, for everyone, and to be a leader both symbolically and actually with the clear understanding that they would be departing in some major ways from the preceding administrations and the presumptions that certain things are constant.  Abrazame (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the edit in question (it was added to the public image section where I think we include notable perspectives right?):
 * Critics of Obama, especially Republicans and Conservatives, have pointed to the Rev. Wright controversy, his associations with Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, his spending plans, and his policies on interrogations and Guantanamo Bay, in asserting that Obama is far to the left on the political spectrum.refScratching Obama's Teflon Washington Post /ref Obama has also been criticized by some liberals for increasing troop numbers in Afghanistan and for not doing more to intervene in banking sector regulation.

Surely it needs tweaking, but I thought this was a collaborative Wiki? If there's something in it that someone disputes as untrue or in violation of BLP, I'd be interested to know what that is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Per wp:cite "sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." I thought we could all agree that there have been Republican and Conservative criticisms on these issues. But maybe someone has evidence to the contrary? They don't seem to have trouble with the mass of uncited, primary sourced and poorly sourced content that is full of accolades and unsubstanitated assertions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Without getting into editor behavior (which is supposed to be discussed elsewhere), the proposed material certainly runs against long-term consensus, with good reason. It has been rejected after discussion discussed many times, probably dozens.  Most editors would not see this as a BLP issue, but the objections run the gamut from weight to relevance, sourcing, coatracking, article content organization, and NPOV.  The issue is not the lack of a cite, although I will add that the citations do not support the material proposed.Wikidemon (talk) 06:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] The edits by Child of Midnight go against long-standing, and repeatedly confirmed, consensus of many editors. We've been over this ground many, many times, and always with the same result. Adding it in, disingenuously, is disruptive. Tvoz / talk 06:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Going through your objections, you cite weight, but NPOV makes clear that various perspectives should be included and we're talking about two sentences, so weight is not an issue. The content is sourced to a large Washington Post story that discusses these issues in some detail, and nmumerous additional sources discuss these issues. Coatracking applies to articles, not article contents. If organization is an issue the contents can be moved. Please do not misrepresent policies and simply take a shotgun approach to objecting. This amounts to wikilawyering. NPOV requires that we include notable perspectives, so we need to figure out which ones are most notable and include those. Please help in this effort. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am merely repeating the various objections that have been made. I will not re-argue them.  Given the tone of the above comment, I do not wish to discuss the proposal further (I'll take that up on your talk page).  Wikidemon (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama in Bush clothing
See: Obama in Bush clothing

Interesting article. Use it in the article. Nagypogi (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OpEds and editorials are not reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tarc that a conservative writer's editorial is not a reliable source notable enough for this content addition. But we need to include the perspectives of those opposed to Obama per NPOV. So Tarc and other editors objecting to particular suggestions made by other good faith editors need to make their own suggestions for how to include this content. Should we add a tag to the article until the issue is addressed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Sceptre (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * CoM, your "issue" is without merit, so no, the tag is rather unnecessary. You're simply not going to get a criticisms section or separate article started in this or any other article that conforms to BLP policy. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed. Adam אָדָם (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama's reversals on campaign promises and position on single-payer healthcare
Based on Sceptre's interesting (juvenile?) edit summaries, I'm not expecting any justification of his removal of the content I added, so I'm opening the discussion myself.


 * The first edit I made, which was reverted because it was "POV", added 4 mainstream sources where Obama was caught completely contradicting his earlier promises: don't ask, don't tell (Dan Choi), NAFTA renegotiation, lobbyists (eg William Lynn of Raytheon), and military tribunals. Since these are facts, there is nothing POV per se about them; however, their inclusion could be POV if they were minor incosequential facts. However, these are massive controversies with lots of press coverage.


 * The second edit gave a neutral rundown of Obama's perspective on single-payer, and was reverted on "dear God no". It was not a complete summary of his healthcare vision, as I'm not really sure what his healthcare vision is. I've heard he's a fan of the "Massachusetts approach" (!), but basically he's been pushing electronic healthcare records and comparative effectiveness -- which are not new policies. The fact that Obama has emerged as a major enemy of single-payer is not controversial; it was stated in the Public Citizen news brief I received today, and I used a CommonDreams article. The more detailed article on Obama and single-payer comes from Truthout, a new organization, but it was authored by one of the foremost journalists of the United States, Bill Moyers. II  | (t - c) 22:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources for your second attempted addition are not reliable sources. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply saying "sources are not reliable" is not an argument. As noted already, Bill Moyers is one of the foremost journalists in the United States. Lack of argument and reasoning will lead me to ignore your comment. II  | (t - c) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SPS. Moyers may be one of the foremost journalists in the US, but that doesn't make him an expert on the topic of health care and insurance. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 23:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moyers is not used to report on the benefits-costs of single-payer. He's simply reporting that 1) Obama was a proponent of single-payer but 2) he is no longer, even though he acknowledges that it might be a better system if starting from scratch. Further, Truthout is not a blog but a news agency with 8 years of history. So you're going to have to substantiate your statement better. II  | (t - c) 23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Truthout is just as much a bevy of partisan hackery as worldnetdaily. Left-wing partisan sources are just as unreliable as right-wing ones are. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you're looking for the reliable sources noticeboard. Despite Truthout's claim of being a news organization, similar websites (Huffington Post, Newsbusters, etc) which also claim to be news organizations have all been previously identified as not being reliable source. Additionally, it is not the qualifications of the person (unless the person is a recognized expert in a related field) that determines if a source is reliable or not, it is the editorial oversight of the source that determines whether it is reliable or not. Even if Moyers were a recognized expert in the field of health insurance, such a source would need to be used with caution, as if his comments were actually notable, they would have been covered by another source. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, do you think any new paragraph that starts "Obama has been accused of" has any chance of being neutral? That said, this is just anti-Obama synthesis of sources. Sceptre (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, yes. If he has been accused, then that is the most neutral way to put it. And since he's been accused by a diverse group of journalists reporting facts, it's not appropriate to attribute all of the "accusations". However, it could be simply reworded: "Obama has not followed through on some of his campaign promises." Perhaps I will do that when I reintroduce the material. II  | (t - c) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just looked at the sourcing for the first set of additions and it would appear that those fail WP:RS as well. One of the "mainstream sources" you use is The Daily Show, which is a satire television source, so is an unreliable source on the face of it. The other three sources are opinion/editorials, which are inherently POV and if used, need to be properly attributed and weighted. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary source for the Dan Choi controversy is the Foreign Policy source. The Daily Show is a supplement for interested readers, and it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking. Occasionally a spoof statement will be thrown out there, but these are easily noticed; in this particular case, it juxtaposes a video quote from Obama with his later statement that he won't be helping Choi out. What matters is not whether an article is titled an editorial, but whether the statements it makes are editorial or not -- that is, whether they're opinions or not. In this case, the editorials are used to cite direct facts, supported either with quotes or with numbers. Please rebut. II  | (t - c) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mind you, a scary amount of people actually don't get that Stephen Colbert satirizes shows like O'Reilly or Hannity. I mean, look at the White House Correspondent's Dinner a couple of years ago. Sceptre (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec X2) I'll add that beyond the sourcing question, the ins and outs of Obama's perhaps shifting / evolving position on different policy matters is probably best addressed in the Presidency of Barack Obama or a child article of that devoted to the specific subject area. This article is devoted to the overall trajectory of Obama and his career, so a change in position on health care would have to be pretty earth shaking to register as a major life event.  Even in the child articles it's rarely going to be appropriate, if at all, to illustrate the subject of "broken promises" or hypocrisy, flip-flopping, etc., because 99% of the time that's just political opposition rhetoric.  If a position does change over time, though, and the change is important and well sourced, it would only make sense to describe that.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, 100% of the "flip-flops" noted in that first edit were completely true and not political rhetoric. Please respond with something more than rhetoric. This article discusses lots of particular facts, but completely avoids the sensitive topics which I added some discussion about (eg gays in the military, lobbyists, healthcare). These are major planks of Obama's campaign and they cannot be avoided in this article. This article is also full of empty political rhetoric like Obama pronoucing "change has come to America". II  | (t - c) 23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Characterizations and deletions of unwanted comments
I'm surprised by a recent edit to this page. Summary: ''Reverted to revision 292489775 by PhGustaf; inappropriate rant that has nothing to do with improving the article. using TW''.

Take a look at it. Go ahead, click that link. The recently added and immediately deleted comment is four paragraphs long. The third and longest of these paragraphs is exclusively concerned with the article about Obama. It appears to me that this has something to do with improving the article.

Is it a rant? I don't see multiple exclamation points, all caps, bolding, confirmatory evidence for Godwin's Law, etc. It does appear very odd in one place, where it says that the article about Obama is "largely irrelevant". Largely irrelevant to what? In context, I infer to Obama. But however much you dislike the article, to say it's irrelevant to Obama strikes me as nuts. On the other hand "irrelevant" (to thing(s) unspecified) seems in some people's idiolects to mean little more than "unsatisfactory", so perhaps it's better not to dwell on this one word.

Every prez is controversial and surely this one is no exception. Granted that the Bill Ayers flap was mere AM radio bloviation taken seriously by some columnists who should have known better, there are plenty of things about Obama's presidency (the reason for his significance) that are disputed by intelligent people and that strike me as a lot more relevant to Obama-as-prez than is, say, Obama's great-uncle served in the 89th Division that overran Ohrdruf, the first Nazi camp liberated by U.S. troops during World War II (as stated in this article). And as long as the commenter starts to point this out in an intelligible and concise way, his or her comment should be tolerated. Go ahead and demand examples and concrete proposals; and if these are not forthcoming then shut up the person who objects. However, deletion (complete with mischaracterization) merely tends to confirm the very allegation that's being deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't think we're reading the same comment then. The comment is clearly intended to be a meta discussion about the inherent bias on Wikipedia which is better suited for the village pump and not here. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that it's a rant that has nothing to do with improving the article? -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing actionable in that comment that could be used to improve the quality of the article. It is the standard bitch about Wikipedia whitewashing left leaning subjects and tarring right leaning subjects. The comment was clearly not an attempt to improve the article, but rather to start a meta discussion about Wikipedia's inherent biases. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So it's a bitch. Is it also a rant? -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why all the parsing? There was nothing constructive in the comment, just vague and unhelpful accusations which are typically removed on sight to prevent talkpage disruption. He cross-posted the same comment to another article talk and Village Pump and is currently being evaluated at VP. If the commenter wants to suggest specific changes to this article, he is more than welcome. --guyzero | talk 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear god. You're whining about the choice of wording in the edit summary? "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet." Or in this case, a meta-discussion is still a meta-discussion, regardless of the wording in the edit summary. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's whining (or invoking god)? I was asking. If it's crossposted somewhere else where it is more appropriate (or less inappropriate), go ahead and delete or hide it with that as the reason, rather than with the fiction that it's a rant. Or should I learn not to pay attention to the words that are used hereabouts? -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever we call it, it was grossly inappropriate for the talk page, seemingly disruptive, and within reason to close as an unconstructive conversation unlikely to lead to any improvement in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be useful to explain to the reverted editor that Wikipedia doesn't have an editorial board. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Over-referencing
There's no reason to use 4 sources instead of 1 to say that Barack Obama is the first African-American President. I kept 2 of these sources because 1 serves as a distinct source for a different claim, that Barack Obama is the first Hawaiian President. Wikidemon has stated that these are there to "avoid conspiracy theories". However, there's no indication of how they do that, and ultimately it just looks sloppy. Additionally, the clumping of the references at the end of the sentence was restored -- references should be used precisely whenever possible. That means one goes after "first African-American" and one goes after first Hawaiian. If extra references are included for further information, that should be noted in the footnote. However, all these articles are short and say basically the same thing. II | (t - c) 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And the crowd says, "amen"! I couldn't agree anympore than I do. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted in the edit summary, the editors of the article have chosen to include multiple references to Obama's birthplace being in Hawaii, in response to serious disruption to this article (which has played out as a number of blocks, a lot of vandalism, pointless discussion, sockpuppetry, a number of edit wars, an Arbcom case, and some international press coverage) on the part of editors who assert that Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii, is not a US citizen, etc. The use of multiple cites to different major media is an attempt to defend against that.  We don't know if it is working, and I don't think we have to prove that.  It's a preventive measure.  I have no objection to a single cite to multiple articles (which should be cleaned up as well).  However, if we have to sacrifice style perfection in an effort to prevent disruption, I would agree with those that added the cites that it's worth it.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I kept one of those sources since it supported the fact that he was the first Hawaiian President. I'm afraid you haven't done your homework. I read all of those sources, and with the exception of the one I kept (and possibly the LA Times article, which is down), none appear to say he was born in Hawaii. Apparently there was another reason for over-referencing that section. Do you remember what it was? Even if your premise was correct, which it apparently isn't, I wouldn't have agreed with it. You don't have to prove that it works, but you do have to prove that there's some reasonable agreement to do doing something which is on the surface unreasonable. Note that over-referencing is not entirely aesthetic; it can also confuse and distract readers like myself, who expect that excess references offer something more than the first reference. II  | (t - c) 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have to prove anything. It has been in the article for a while, and a couple regular editors have reverted the change, so the status quo is that it has consensus.  Upon reviewing it in more detail, I see what the history was.  The sources are there to support the statement that Obama is African-American, not that he was born in Hawaii.  There has been considerable discussion on that point and it is in the FAQ, due to people who consider the term incorrect or offensive because Obama is biracial.  For this matter it is helpful to show a preponderance of strong sources, because those who object often are directed to the articles.  Later, someone added that Obama is the first president from Hawaii, something that has been in and out of the article - some people including me think that's a bit trivial, but it's not offensive.  Unfortunately, whoever added that bit put it before the citations so they were in the wrong place.  To fix things and improve readability I just consolidated all the cites for being African American into a single footnote, and put it by the phrase.  I hope that addresses confusion / readability.  I also fixed a bot-generated citation title.  I have not tried to address the appropriateness of each source and whether they're the strongest.  Perhaps 3-5 different ones could be used.  However, it is useful to show that Obama is called African-American not just by one source but by many.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A general but related comment. I've have seen multiple references rolled into a single reference if having a bunch of numbers in the article text is an issue. Multiple sources can be very beneficial especially in cases when sources have very different perspectives on an event (as is often the case). So I support including a variety of sources where possible within reason, but in some cases where there is little dispute or the statement is straightforward, a single citation or no citation may be acceptable. In this case I don't see the need for multiple citations unless there are reliable sources disputing the assertion. And if that's the case then the divergent views need to be included somehow per NPOV, or some clarification can be made and then it can be discussed elsewhere. For example, using a modifier like: "generally" or "often" should be considered. I do think things get interesting in a "post racial" era when mixed race families are common. Tiger Woods and Barack Obama are examples where the terminology used can serve to pigeon hole a complex issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Josephine Baker. PhGustaf (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

New Presidential Navbox!
Hey, I was coming here to see if you all like these User:USAAuthority/Sandbox1! USA Authority  DC  02:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really. I get that you wanted more nationalistic colors, but the contrast is harder on the eyes, and the flag's just 'rah rah' overkill. The seal of the office is more important, and more relevant. ThuranX (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama and his teleprompter
See this article: Biden takes dig at Obama over teleprompter use.

In the article: "Obama has long been criticized from Republicans for at times appearing over reliant on a teleprompter, even during short and informal speeches."

I think this should be in the article. Nagypogi (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So trival the mind boggles. Sockpuppet right? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama discovers an American intelligence agency at Five Guys
Remarkable conversation: In which the president discovers an American intelligence agency at Five Guys

For the recorded video, see: [http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/29/HP/A/19239/Pres+Obama+at+Five+Guys+Burgers+Fries+in+Washington.aspx Pres. Obama at Five Guys Burgers & Fries in Washington]

Write about it in the article! Blaschkegomb (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * completely trival, like every other "addition" you asked for under many many names. - you sure are burning up those sockpuppets. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevancy
Both as an inclusionist, as well as a disinterested observer (I didn't add the text, I merely cleaned up someone else's addition), I question this edit:. Rather than just proclaim something "irrelevant", let's have a discussion here - particularly based on this page's protection status. The data entered was: Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * properly cited (more sources could be added, but that would be a case of making a WP:POINT, and is not needed)
 * notable (the section discusses 1st 100 day approval numbers - comparisons of which were vice the last two Presidents were published by a number of sources)
 * (out of sequence)First, I think you have the wrong link above. The one you have relates to my questioning why we need another sandbox section for the Obama articles.  I think the one you wanted was my edit removing the comparision of Obama's approval ratings after his first 100 days to other presidents?  I'll weigh in on that below, in sequence.  QueenofBattle (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another editor has removed the content again, without discussion (see article history). Let's discuss this rationally, please. Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact two different editors rmved it should give you an idea that it is in fact irrelevant. Soxwon (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, on pages with as much dispute as this article's, that two editors made a similar edit is not compelling. Perhaps you or the other editor could explain your reasoning, and we could get some other comments? I do believe the entry was both properly sourced and notable, as I listed in the bullet points, above. Furthermore, the text being removed is on-point to the paragraph. I can't see the lack of relevancy. Please explain. Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe this edit violates the terms of the probation of this article. Please reconsider, and consider self-reverting. Thank you. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really can't see how the approval rating of previous presidents relates to Barak Obama as a person. It relates to his presidency but not to his biography. Soxwon (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree here. Historically, presidents have often been compared by contrasting their performances in their first 100 days in office. It would seem, therefore, that comparing polling data for this period is relevant (particularly as the data received widespread mainstream media coverage). That being said, I do believe that the entire paragraph is in the wrong section. Perhaps this is something that should be proposed here instead? Whatever happens, edit warring over this paragraph is completely unacceptable (and that includes tag-team edit warring, folks). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Your bad faith assumption and personal attack doesn't help your argument Scjessey. Comparing approval ratings is again something that relates to his presidency, not to his personal status. Previous president's approval ratings have as much room in this article as Ayers. Soxwon (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What "bad faith assumption and personal attack" are you referring to? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The accusation of tag-team edit warring? Plz, that is hardly an assumption of good faith. Soxwon (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not an accusation of bad faith (or a personal attack). You continued someone else's edit war, which is my definition of tag-team edit warring. Sorry if you don't like it, but the edit history corroborates it. Any edit warring is bad, and picking up where someone else's edit warring left off is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relevancy and importance / weight both seem slight. It might make sense to include a little polling data in the article, but polling data at any given moment in an administration is not that important to the overall sweep of the career.  We don't put in Thomas Jefferson's bio how well liked he was at each stage among different constituencies.  Comparing Obama to Bush and Clinton is a context free factoid.  Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As the guy who was the first to make the edit on the basis of irrelevancy, let me say that Wikidemon sums up my point exactly. I don't understand the point of the comparison?  Is it to suggest that Obama is better than Bush or Clinton?  More popular?  Both Bush and Clinton got a lower percentage of the vote and yet had approval ratings some 15-20 points higher than their electoral victories.  Obama got 53-ish% of the vote, and had a 65% approval rating; a net gain of only 12%.  Relevant?  Hell, I don't know, but it is as interesting as a comparision to the raw approval ratings.  How about compared to Kennedy, or Reagan, or Johnson?  QueenofBattle (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see this as a little too nit picky. Like QueenofBattle said above, why stop at just comparing Obama with Clinton and Bush, why not include all the previous presidents too?  I think trying to compare his popularity against past presidents popularity is a little too much information even if it is cited.  The section/paragraph can easily stand on its own without that little factoid at the end.  Brothejr (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Brother, QoB, and Wikidemon. Were this to assert that 'Obama had the highest approval rating after 100 days of any president since the 100 days period became an artificial media created yardstick of effectiveness', then I could see it being relevant to the article, as an indicator of overwhelming popularity, and could be tied to his wide popularity, etc., etc. However, to cherry pick the last two isn't saying all that much. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The first-hundred-days metric does not seem to be currently factored in at the United States Presidential approval rating article. If such an early comparison is reasonable or really says anything (and I'm not sure that it is/does), that seems a far better place to add information comparing the approval ratings of presidents at the 100-days point than a biography article, particularly one as necessarily brief as those here at Wiki. Unsurprisingly, while QueenofBattle finds a negative way to frame it, I would say that it is a fairly logical conclusion that a president who won with a larger percentage of the vote would have a higher approval rating at the beginning of his presidency.  If that weren't the case, that might be worth taking the space to point out, in service of an explanation as to why.  As it is, it doesn't materially add to the understanding of the man, much less his young presidency, or the public's acceptance of him (which is higher than you'd guess if you'd only read the archives of this page).  Abrazame (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we keep to trying to improve the article, rather than trying to pick a fight by commenting on other editors with comments like "Unsurprisingly, while QueenofBattle finds a negative way to frame it..."? If you want to make comments about me, here is my talk page.  You can square up there if it'll make you feel better, but should pipe down here.  QueenofBattle (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Birth
Shouldn't it be noted that Obama's mother was approximately 3-4 months pregnant with him when she wed his father in FEB 1961? The article states his DOB at the beginning, then when it mentions the marriage between his mother and father, it says Obama was born "later that year". Why?

GWS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.241.183 (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's pretty well documented that Obama's mom was a free spirit, that she loved him like crazy, and that he loved her like crazy. Nobody cares whether a ceremony was a little late.  15:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find this very irrelevant. This is about Obama, not his mother, and it is not particularly significant even for her. Also, as everything, it would require a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Army
Maybe I just missed it, but the article doesn't seem to say anything about whether Barack Obama enrolled in the US army or not.

Even if he didn't, it would be something worth mentioning since as far as I know almost all (if not all?) presidents did. 93.33.230.172 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really want the information try here. Incidentally, The US Army is not the only branch of service. Wperdue (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Indeed, unless I'm mistaken, Thomas Jefferson did not join the US Army (and would have found the idea preposterous). John Adams did not. James Madison did not. John Quincy Adams did not. Franklin D. Roosevelt did not. Herbert Hoover did not. More recently, Bill Clinton did not. George W. Bush did not. If we want to nitpick, neither did George Washington. "Almost all" seems to be not quite backed by by history... And if we start listing things Obama did not do, this will be a very long article... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. I'm assuming he didn't serve, because if he did it would probably be mentioned however briefly.  We can reason through this here, but a good indication of whether or not it's worth including in the article is whether it's talked about much in books, the press, etc., paying particular attention to solid, reliable sources.  If all the major sources saw fit to note it, that's a good indication that writers consider it something that an informed reader should know about Obama.  If it's only mentioned here or there, in dry factual sources, in specialized publications, or in partisan sources, that's a sign that it's not a matter of general interest.  BTW, there might be a separate article somewhere about the military service record of presidents, and if so it would be more relevant to that article.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama didn't serve in the military, as many Presidents have not done, including John Adams, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Bill Clinton. For more information, see List of United States Presidents by military service. Thanks, YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox re. Presidency section
It appears that the "Presidency" section is extremely limited, and lists no accomplishments or events since the second month of his presidency in February 2009. Key events, such as Supreme Court Nominations, key foreign policy events, and others that occurred since February should be included with limited detail, even though this is not the primary article on his presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deytel (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying out the sandbox. It has a proposed revision for the Presidency section, which includes mention of the change in generals and retention of the incumbent Defense Secretary. It's organized in 3 parts; eventually we'll want to add 2 more. Please look and comment so we can see whether the sandbox idea works. CouldOughta (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved the proposal to the main page of the Sandbox, but per my comment on the talk page, left it there as well for User:CouldOughta to delete. I've made a couple of edits to the proposal (after moving it to the sandbox in the version that existed there and had only been given minor edits by the aforementioned editor).  I do have a couple of issues with a word here and there, which I will take up on that talk page in the near future.  In the meantime, I would invite the editors of this page to visit that sandbox and weigh in.  As with this article, please explain each significant edit there in an Edit summary and discuss any major issues on the talk page.  Abrazame (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Folks, I am not sure why this is necessary. The text in the sandbox is largely what is in the Obama articles already, but devoid of any neutrality.  Can someone help me understand why we wouldn't just discuss these thinks on the talk page of the relevant Obama article, reach consensus (or not) and move on with the edits?  We seem to be creating more work and complication, where less complication seems to be the better course.  QueenofBattle (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The sandbox was the brainchild of administrator User:Bigtimepeace, setup in order to work on significant article improvements (like a completely overhauled Presidency of... section) without it getting lost in the tangled mess here. It was discussed at length a couple of weeks ago and attracted support. It is my understanding that once the section has been written and polished up, it will get introduced here for the usual consensus-seeking discussion that may or may not lead to its addition to the article. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not sure what you mean by "devoid of any neutrality". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a procedural question. If we're going to discuss refinements to the Presidency section that we are working out on the main page of the Sandbox, should we move the discussion to the talk page of the Sandbox?  I think that makes sense, but if we do so, we should make note here that we're discussing the Presidency section there.  At the moment we have two topics going on in this discussion, QueenofBattle questioning the need for the Sandbox, and also questioning the text being refined there ("devoid of any neutrality").  Why don't we debate the neutrality/quality of the edits on the talk page of the Sandbox for now, to let us try it out?  That may well answer QueenofBattle's other question as well. CouldOughta (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like CouldOughta's suggestion. I am afraid my feeble mind has problems multitasking.  QueenofBattle (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

CouldOughta was right the first time. I've been apprised of the limitations of software and policies pertaining to article space prohibit the creation of a Sandbox main page (even though there's a tab for one), and intend for the Sandboxing to be done on the discussion page. (This is why the Barack Obama/Sandbox links here and the Article tab there have gone back to red, and must remain red.) Originally slated for deletion and redirect, I think I've fixed the problem. Apologies for any confusion, but thus far it seems to be just the three of us here paying any attention. So the way we need to play this is to compose, revise and sculpt in the sandbox but there is no separate page provided for discussion. As the variables have changed since the above discussion, and as the current proposal there takes up more than a full screen, I propose that we hold the discussions in a discrete section here (a new section created here for each distinct proposal begun there) with links on each page to the other. This way we can either click back and forth with the links or open two windows and view text on the one page that we're writing about on the other page, instead of scrolling way up and down and up and down, especially if and when discussions grow. So again, the link, to the Sandbox. Abrazame (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Presidency Section

 * Changes have been proposed to the Presidency section. The new text has been posted here in a sandbox.  The plan is to edit and improve the text in the sandbox, with the discussion taking place on this page.  After we acheive consesnus (easy as pie, right?) we copy the new text to the Barack Obama page.


 * There were some hiccups in getting the sandbox into place, but things seem clear now. Partly as a result of those hiccups, there's discussion/explanation on the sandbox page.  I'm copying the discussion below.  Please paste your comments below.  This is a trial of a new process and we're hoping it works out well.  The discussion so far:

Re. Presidency Section Text: The domestic revisions reflect the need to mention something about the later stimulus act and the intervention in the auto industry, both encyclopedia-worthy events. It all comes largely from the Presidency article. On the war side, the change in generals reflects the fact that Obama has a preferred war strategy and is taking steps to implement it. Obama has made two encyclopedia-worthy Cabinet picks, the incumbent (i.e. Republican-nominated) Defense Secretary, and a political rival as Secretary of State. Both should be included, but the State pick can wait until we have a Foreign Policy section separate from the war. So far, not enough encyclopedia-worthy foreign policy has been accomplished to merit a section. I eliminated the 100 Days heading in favor of an First Days section-- it fit the flow of history better. CouldOughta (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to CouldOughta for getting a start on this, as I said previously I'd meant to do so prior to going on vacation but did not have a chance.


 * First off I would hope to see a lot more folks commenting here on the talk page and working on the new proposed section at Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox than are currently doing so. As far as I know this is the first significant (and specific) content revision that has been proposed for this article in at least a couple of months, and while the possibility of doing this has been discussed for weeks only a few editors have had anything to say about it. I think it would be great if we could get more eyes on this proposal and more participants in this discussion.


 * I'd like to give other editors a chance to comment and make changes to the proposed addition first since I'm trying to take a more stepped-back approach to this article (as one who is doing adminly stuff on the Obama articles), but if not a lot of folks are weighing in I'll probably dive into the content questions because I do think the presidency section is in dire need of an update.


 * I have one general question at the outset as relates to CouldOughta's proposed text and hopefully others can weigh in on this. The suggested change is a small expansion/reorganization of the existing text, but it still reads largely as a list of facts about things the Obama administration has done or said. Should we be including some (very limited, for now at least) material relating to response/reaction/effects/etc. even though we are still in the early going? That is, do we need to start thinking beyond "Obama said/Obama did" in this section and begin to add depth to our discussion of his presidency by bringing in outside evaluations? In the long run the answer to that is undoubtedly "yes" (compare other bio articles about presidents and their sections on presidencies), and while I think we're already at that point at 4+ months in office I'd like to see what the general consensus is on this issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry...
English? - The article states that he is mostly of English-descent on his mother's side, yet of the three references cited, one says nothing about his ancestry and the other two are principally about his Irish heritage. The references simply do not match the text. Shouldn't this be changed? (I know this page is semi-protected, so I hesitate to make any changes without prior discussion.) Philliefan09 (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Americans of Swiss-German descent and Category:People of Huguenot descent fits Obama, no matter how far back. I get how some would find this unimportant, but important is the sole criteria. I mean he is the descendant of Swiss-Germans and Huguenots.

He has a couple different German lines, the Aments, the Stroups, the Wolfleys, etc... If people perfer, use Category:People of Scottish descent rather then Category:Scottish Americans. Also the first line of the Category:Scottish American is just people from Scotland and their descendants, which he is... Cladeal832 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Under the provision that the categories "People of ________ descent" are used, I might be able to be persuaded. But without strong support by others, I really feel this is over-categorizing the article with minutia. DKqwerty (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought we take a pass on such things unless the subject self-identifies as such? Tarc (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. It's trivial at best, original speculation at worst. Some of this stuff is justification because at some point 500 years ago, the region his family was form was conquered by X, or Y was the majority populace. Not good enough. ThuranX (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To the "self-identification" stuff, here is the official quote nearly anytime a genealogy article comes out about Barack Obama: "I've got pieces of everybody in me,". Some are creating a false conclusion. This wasn't speculation or best guest. It's researched documented that these are his anccestors and they were from Y or X prior to Kansas. And when you're the leader of the free world, your ancestry gets a closer look. Go to European communities like Moneygall or Bischwiller or Besigheim or Anglesey and the people there won't tell tell you it's trivial.123456 Cladeal832 (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't actually address the point being made; ethnic categorization isn't done here unless the subject identifies him/herself with it. Most Americans are mutts and could pigeonhole themselves into any number of micro-categories.  It isn't important. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Unless there's additional reason, outside of self-identification, to include it, because of notable actions by the subject, then it should stay out. that is, unless we see Obama enacting policy based on those minute heritages, it's not worth including. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I could make a decent argument that I was a Viking-American. But my ancestors were too busy raping and pillaging to keep close track of bloodlines.  It doesn't affect me at all; I've done no raping and only modest pillaging in my life. PhGustaf (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Barack Obama
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Barack Obama's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "energy": From Virginia:  From Presidency of Barack Obama:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As a semi-sentient editor, I tried to figure out what this bot is asking, but was not successful - I didn't find an orphaned ref named "energy".  Perhaps a more sentient editor can have a go at it. Tvoz / talk 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you and I have yet had a "sentientcy contest" in order to see which one of us is more sentient, Tvoz (surely we'll get to that someday); but like you I have no idea what this bot is talking about. It is a very friendly bot though, and I like that it says at the outset that it can't really determine what to do, and at the end admits that it might not really know what it's talking about. This particular bot-message might not apply to this article, but in terms of the language it uses the bot is truly a model of civility and humility and&mdash;I think&mdash;an example to us all. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - there are a few editors I can think of who ought to take this bot out for a drink and get some tips... Tvoz / talk 06:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Article about religious views of Obama?
Shouldn't we create an article about the religious views of Obama? After all, the great discussion questioning if Obama is the Messiah, the Second Coming of Jesus, the Antichrist or a normal mortal. Just Google it, I got mroe than four millions results on the first two. Von Mario (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a correlation between the man's popularity/cult status and his religious beliefs. I doubt few, if any, of the vaunted "four million" hits there have any reliable, notable, or serious discussions on Obama's literal transcendence into the demisphere. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The public image of Barack Obama article could do with a section about the many relious-style references he has received, particularly from those who are very enthusiastic about him.--MartinUK (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad habits
Obama has a bad habit of telling people to sit down or have a seat, when they're giving him a standing ovation. Could this be added to the article (with sources)? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to guess why you are referring to this as a "bad habit", and unless reliable sources do, and it's deemed of sufficient weight to go into his biography (both of which I highly doubt), no, it would not be added to the article. Tvoz / talk 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh... what? This is a joke, right? Ikilled007 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope so, but I'm sad to say, around this page one never knows. So I answered it. Tvoz / talk 19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the Wiki-record, it wasn't a joke. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is pertinent to the article at this point. You call it a bad habit, others might call it humility, a desire to move on with his speech, a desire to keep to a schedule, etc... I don't think it's a joke by any means. If you have sources, fact, reasoning here then maybe we look at it. That doesn't mean it gets included. I have a hard time believing it ever will be. (Rustydangerfield (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Criticism of Obama
This article seems extraordinarily uncritical for a significant page on Wikipedia. At present it almost reads like a press release from his office. Even Jesus Christ doesn't get such good coverage in popular media. Globally, there is much distrust about Obama -- I believe there is a duty for Wikipedians to cover thoroughly such controversy in an encyclopaedic article. The YouTube film, The Obama Deception, is just one of many examples, not that I agree with all it offers. Such criticisms should be explored in Wikipedia, in the name of balance and NPOV. Alpheus (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ section above on this page, questions 6-9 entitled "Controversies, praise and criticism" - click on "show" for the answers.  Tvoz / talk 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? You're using The Obama Deception as an example? The Obama Deception is just another piece of "ZOMG! SOCIALIST!"/"ZOMG! NEW WORLD ORDER!" fluff. Sceptre (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good source to me, although I do agree with Alpheus in that I do not agree with all it offers...haha Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We run into a challenge here as we do with all sources in reference to reliable sources. Adding ZOMG does not discredit the source because it appears extreme or fringe. Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that this is allowable. The test seems to be two-fold. 1) Does it obscure the mainstream view? I think not, meaning it's allowable here. 2) Test two applies to whether or not it gives creedence to or overstates a fringe theory's level of acceptance, and I think it's fair to say that including this would do just that, which argues against including The Obama Deception specifically.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC))
 * More specifically it is a fringe conspiracy theory video of little note. It is already covered (although without sources) in the article about its producer, Alex Jones (radio host).  It is neither significant nor relevant enough to be worth including in this article either for the fact that the video was made, or that it expresses a particular extreme opinion.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is in clear violation of wp:NPOV (neutral point of view). We are expected to include a variety of perspectives. There are many notable criticisms of Obama and none of them are included appropriately. The lesser more fringey ones may not belong here in this article, but should be included appropriately elsewhere on Wikipedia with links (such as a see also to a list of article or via wikilinks) so readers can access them. The bias and censorship that's been engaged in on this subject is disgusting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As we have found in the dozens of other times you have brought this matter to this and other articles, you notion of "notable criticisms" does not rise to the standard that the Wikipedia requires. Laundry lists of criticisms will not be appearing in the main article, and for the material that is notable...for someone who has amassed all of 5 months in office...are in Public image of Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , , . These are the last 8 presidents, none of them have criticism sections, and the list included presidents like George W. Bush, Nixon, LBJ, Clinton, and Carter. If we're going to add a criticism section, it should probably be on a president that has finished their presidency, and have had historians and other academics go over and examine their presidencies.
 * Both the the John McCain and Sarah Palin have pages similar to Obama. So COM, are you really trying to keep NPOV, all I see is that you're trying to add your own POV. Every single president has criticism, yet an overwhelming majority of them don't have criticism, even the very controversial part of the artice. Yet, this is the only president I see you even try to bring this up on. One, the president should probably finish his term. Otherwise, it's just like saying that a five month old baby is evil, though we have yet to see how everything works out in the end. W.Bush shouldn't have a criticism section because he's just finished his presidency and people still have yet to analyze it besides "OMG, conservatives suck, hey, Iraq was wrong, I never voted for him". Like for Obama, it's pretty much "OMG, liberals suck, I don't like taxes, he's a muslim". So, before you start going, hey, this is in violation of NPOV, it's disgusting. You should probably consider that you're pushing an extreme amount of POV, to a point that it's also disgusting. Deavenger (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the latest president to have a criticism section or article, to my knowledge, is FDR. We used to have one for Bush, and a massive criticism section, but we've undergone a concerted effort to better integrate it into other articles. The constant pushing for a criticism article/section is not NPOV, because no comparable person has the sections either (either candidates or predecessors). Sceptre (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing I want to add, none of the presidents should have criticism sections. One, it's about the presidency, not the actual person. 2, it falls under presidency and public image of the president of former president. Deavenger (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has addressed the substance of the neutral point of view violation. There are no criticisms included in this article. That's inappropriate. And if you read the McCain or other articles they are chock full. Obama has received substantial criticisms for his personal associations, for his economic policies, for his foreign policies and positions on Iraq and interrogations, for his style of governance and yet none of it is mentioned anywhere in this article. This is a puff piece written by partisans. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For the n-teenth time: aside from his personal associations, everything you just mentioned regards his presidency, not his biography. And there is no source that has confirmed any actual impropriety regarding his ancillary associations with, say, Bill Ayers; to include it in his biography gives undo weight to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. DKqwerty (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what version of the McCain article you're reading, but the McCain article is quite positive of him. So is the cultural image article, which has a section about his temprament and controversial remarks because he's a self-admitted snark (although the former section could do with a bit of rewriting). Sceptre (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ChildofMidnight, there is simply no "neutral point of view violation" here. You have made this accusation, numerous times, and it has been soundly rejected by the community.  Your "substantial criticisms" are invariably sourced to fringe nuttery, as this person's "Obama Deception" is, or giving undue weight to extreme minority POVs, or both.  This is veering into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus of community is actually one of the dangers of democracy and a true NPOV, but that's a discussion for another day. @ChidofMidnight Criticisms are really no more appropriate than praises in that they are on the edge and do not create an NPOV either. @DKqwerty impropriety and criticism are not the same thing, and impropriety is not what is being discussed here, criticism and personal associations are. Impropriety is not the test for whether this should be included or not. Wikipedia guidelines are also clear that just because something is seen as fringe does not negate it being included. The test is whether it gives undue weight in a manner that gives the impression that the belief or view is more popular than it really is.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
 * A reminder: Wikipedia is not a democracy. And the talk archives are full of extensive discussions about the points CoM raises, as he knows. Consensus has always come back to the same point, and one should not assume that a lack of willingness to discuss it yet again on the parts of some editors indicates that anyone has changed his or her mind.  Tvoz / talk 17:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was a democracy. I alluded to the idea that "consensus of community" is the same thing as democracy and that it's a danger to finding a true NPOV here when editors (or anyone for that matter) believes that something gets included or disregarded simply on the basis of consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustydangerfield (talk • contribs) 02:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A reminder: Consensus can change.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True consensus can change, however it is not going to change overnight nor at the whim of some editors. To get these edits into the article without edit warring, you need to get a consensus of editors.  As it stands now, there is no consensus for the edits.  Brothejr (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC
 * Nor will it ever have a chance to change if every single discussion is quickly closed and every single question some one poses is refered back o the archives.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it can be considered a disruption if the same editors continue to bring up the same topic over and over again in the hopes that it might change consensus. Brothejr (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thus the danger of believing that consensus = democracy. What if 12 months down the road the issue gets brought up again, and the consensus is different? Wikipedia is much more of a democracy than it admits to be. Yes, the "guidelines" say it isn't, but nothing could be further from the truth. Consensus does, and always will be fluid and changing, and I've noticed here and in other articles that when a few don't want the consensus to change the claim some lame argument about "long standing" or "don't delete, improve." This isn't a matter of it's been brought up and settled. If this is to be a true thing edited by the people, new ideas and new opinions still get a voice whether today or in 6 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustydangerfield (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. Tvoz / talk 18:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of furthering this debate: to discuss his associations is to imply that they are somehow improper, otherwise there's no reason to address them without including all of Obama's associations, positive or negative. If we were to discuss any and all associations, we'd end up with an unwieldy list of people that would likely get shunted to a separate article anyway. Discussing the controversy surrounding these associations implies that they are of consequence – which they are not as nothing has come of them – and gives credence to unsubstantiated claims of impropriety due to these associations, a claim for which there are no reliable sources. Furthermore, these controversies have nothing to do with his biography and are at most an anecdote of the 2008 campaign. DKqwerty (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find this to be true at all "there's no reason to address them without including all of Obama's associations" because associations do imply impropriety. I don't think the associations you have mentioned mean impropriety here though. The biography/campaign separation argument isn't very sound either as there are plenty of campaign instances in his article + a biography is shaped by a president's experiences, especially his campaign.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Numerous editors keep bringing up the NPOV issue, so to say that it's resolved and that consensus has been achieved is simply false. The policy and guidelines are clear. Whether Obama's associations, whether the criticisms of his positions on the role of government, and whether his views on economic policy are right or wrong is irrelevant. These issues have received very substantial coverage. So just as the Keating 5 is covered in McCain's article, the issues raised by those opposing Obama need to be included in his article. Lots of editors have made it clear that they don't personally agree with these perspectives, and that's wonderful, but per NPOV we include notable perspectives whether we agree with them and they're "right" or "wrong". No one can seriously argue that there hasn't been substantial coverage of his associations, that he hasn't been criticized for his economic policies and positions, and that his governance philosophy in favor of government intervention isn't controversial. So let's get together and work out how to include this content appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What you call "numerous" others would call a collections of WP:SPAs and those on the verge of 6-month topic bans. i.e. nothing much to speak of.  Nothing Obama has done so far has risen to the level of a fraud scandal on par with the Keating 5. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keating 5 has nothing to do with this article (Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * McCain was cleared of all charges. Please don't violate our BLP guidelines by misrepresenting facts and attempting to smear people with falsehoods. Obama's close relationship with Tony Rezko over many years is very similar, except that it was never officially investigated and no determination has ever been made on whether there was any wrongdoing. We know Rezko was involved in Obama's purchase of his house from the initial tour to the simultaneous purchase. We know Obama supported money going to Rezko's fraudulent housing schemes that wasted an enormous amount of money on projects that were never completed. So please don't misrepresent the facts and impose your personal opinion on others. The scandals involving Rezko, Wright and Ayers have been widely reported on in relation to Obama. Your personal bias is irrelevant and the need to comply with our core policy of NPOV is paramount. Readers should have an opportunity to decide for themselves which perspectives they agree with, and we shouldn't be censoring content and biasing our coverage inappropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aaand now we see that you're just a simple POV pusher. You're apparently trying to prevent people from "misrepresenting the facts" and "imposing your personal opinion on others", but at the same time you're trying to assume that Obama being at the same community meeting with a former terrorist makes him a communist sympathiser. That makes as much sense as implying the Democratic Party is a white supremacist party because its most senior Senator used to be a recruiter for the Klan. Sceptre (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We should all be NPOV pushers. That's the goal.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Once again Sceptre you engage in personal attacks and smears. I haven't suggested any of those things. I've suggested that a notable perspective is that Obama's associations with Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers have been controversial and notable. There's also notable criticism about his views on the role of government and his economic policies. We owe it to our readers to note these and to provide links to the articles covering these issues in more detail so people who choose to do so can can read about them. NPOV is a core policy and we can't violate based on our personal beliefs. It's irrelevant whether you or I think he did anything wrong. There are notable criticisms and controversies and they need to be included whether we agree with them or not, just as we include them for other politicians. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy that you don't want smears in the McCain article but you're perfectly fine with those smears in the Obama article. We ask you: what is so important about Rezko, Wright, or Ayers that it changed Obama's direction completely, like Keating did to McCain? And of course, there is criticism about his role in government and economic policies. The same is true about Bush, who widely expanded the amount of power the executive wields and seeing the worst recession since World War II happen on his watch. But there is no criticism section for him. Instead, we talk about his economic policies, and talk about who supports and who opposes him. Sceptre (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There is extensive discussion of the Keating issue in McCain's article and there's a link to the Keating article covering the issues more broadly. There is extensive criticism in the Byush article, including in the opening paragraphs. There is no criticism in this article because it's being censored against our NPOV policies. There is very substantial coverage in reliable sources of the issues raised repeatedly by multiple editors: associations, economic policies, philosophy on government's role. You keep making stuff up and making untrue accusations, but you refuse to deal with the core point that this article reflects only one POV. This article violates our neutral point of view policy because sources and content that cover issues that aren't favorable are being excluded. That's improper. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Keating scandal ended up causing John McCain to focus on making sure public money is spent correctly by the government. And that's one of his more notable activities. In comparison, what did Ayers/Wright/Rezko do to make Obama completely change his direction on an issue? Sceptre (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Wright controversy actually did influence a major spiritual decision on Obama's part. He withdrew from his church. Of course, that's already mentioned in this article, as is proper. -- Good Damon 01:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Wright issue was a very big deal during the campaign. To pretend like it wasn't is simply disingenuous. Ayers and others were a little more of political cheap shots to seek for character assassination.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I completely agree. But more importantly, reliable news sources also agree, especially on the Ayers crap. -- Good Damon 13:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll concede Wright, and I did ask that question knowing that there may be a perfectly good reason for mentioning him in the article: it did change his religion (from Trinity to non-denominational/unspecified), which is an important part of a person's life. However, Ayers was pretty much indeed a classic case of mudslinging. It may be acceptable to say "Obama launched his political career at a meeting with Chicago community organisers such as Bill Ayers, State Senator Alice Palmer, etc", but adding "former Weather Underground member/terrorist" wouldn't, as it would infer guilt by association, akin to calling the Democrats a white supremacist party because Byrd used to recruit for the Klan; it was in the past, and they've (both) verifiably atoned and reformed. Sceptre (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Point of order, Obama did not launch his political career there. That's been debunked - it's demonstrably untrue.  Actually, it was never bunked in the first place.  That was part of the smear.  Anyway, I have no desire to re-open the discussion of whether the Ayers / "palling around with terrorists" campaign rhetoric should be added to this article, after it has been rejected several dozen times.  This is not a new proposal, and in general proposals that begin with accusations that the article is a puff piece then wander into this territory yet again are too redundant and malformed to be actionable.Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, he didn't? I guess I was confused about that. The sentiment still stands, though. Sceptre (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. I won't do the whole history again here, but here is a fairly good overview of how it came to be a political issue.  In 2005, local Chicago political operative Maria Warren wrote about the 1995 meeting (variously called a "meet-and-greet" or a "tea") on her blog, "Musings & Migraines": "When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."  Ben Smith (journalist) may or may not have been the first mass circulation journalist to pick it up, but he certainly publicized the blog post with this column.  After that the claim spread like wildfire that Obama's political career started in their living room, but this is clearly not true.  Obama was already a politician at this time and it was not his first meet-and-greet.  Nor is it what she said: she said they launched him, not his career.  Exactly what did she mean by making that comment ten years after the fact?  Nobody knows, and she won't talk about it.  But there are a couple of unremarkable interpretations.  Anyway, the history of how the contacts between Ayers and Obama because an election issue in 2008 are described in some detail in an article devoted entirely to that subject.  Wikidemon (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by the controversy and sometimes vehemence that my comment (above) has drawn. My point remains the same: the Barack Obama article does not seem NPOV -- not enough for Wikipedia. It's almost disgraceful. I'm not for Barack Obama, nor against him. I'm not for Alex Jones, nor against him. However, to say, as one Wikipedian does, that The Obama Deception film (which I neither endorse nor condemn) "is neither significant nor relevant enough to be worth including in this article" can hardly be correct. It has been downloaded more than 2,300,000 times in a short period, from YouTube alone. It is also on Google Video and no doubt downloaded a great many times from there. I, for one, would be ecstatic if a movie I made was so "insignificant" that 2,300,000 people downloaded it in less than six months. I have concerns that the above debate about the Obama article is partisan, and, as I don't live in the USA, this seems quite bizarre to me. Is it to do with many Americans' almost monarchical view of their presidency? Alpheus (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? Fahrenheit 9/11 won a Palme D'Or and it isn't mentioned in George W. Bush, 2003 invasion of Iraq, or even Opposition to the Iraq War, despite (attempting to be/being) a little bit more based in truth than The Obama Deception. Sceptre (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2,300,000 downloads is not the same thing as 2,300,000 people; if each download represents a person who watched it, say, ten times, that's only 230,000 people. Nor does popularity inform significance or accuracy. DKqwerty (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an 111 minute movie. Your theory is not likely accurate in any sense that people would watch it 10 times.
 * That's quite a good point, DKquerty, but it's as valid to assume that ten people watched a download as that one person downloaded a YouTube video ten times. As for popularity not indicating significance, I think you're on shaky ground there. If popularity were not a factor, we'd have no references in Wikipedia to The Beatles, The Simpsons or even the President of the United States of America or any elected official. Popularity is always the basis of electoral success, except in rigged elections. Alpheus (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * YouTube view counts can be inflated by having people watch them again and again. Sceptre (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated above. It's an 111 minute movie. Repeat viewings are likely, but not numerous viewings.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Agreed. How many of those 2+ million hits/downloads have been repeat viewings?  Can it be confirmed that the number is not inflated by some people continually reviewing the video to increase the numbers?  That alone would disqualify it being a reliable source.  Next question is outside youtube, blogs, and "news" sources that would support the video, has any reliable source like CNN, New York Post, Washington Post, Politico, etc covered it, backs up the info in the vid, or given in substational coverage that the common person in the street would know the video?  A video questioning the president does not qualify it to be used as a source.  Plus, it has to be a rather significant event in Obama's life to be included here.  Otherwise, it should be discussed in the presidency article, the public image article, the campaign article, or one of the related controversy articles.  Brothejr (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does everyone insist on ignoring this WP:Fringe. Fringe theories are allowed, but there is a test for whether they are included. Stop disregarding them because you think they are fringe. And stop thinking that something is mainstream when it's fringe.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I sigh and retire from the illogic and inanity of this debate. Alpheus (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, if you want to participate in the discussion you have to do more than show up citing a fringe source, then denegrate the editors here for not taking it seriously. Even assuming it's true, that 2 million people (1.5% of the American electorate?) have viewed a fringe source does that say anything about the life and times of the President?  If you think so, find reliable sources to support the claim.  Your argument that lots of people have viewed this radical material says something about the President is pretty farfetched.  Wikidemon (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is clear, fringe sources can be used, not that I think it should be used, but I'm tired of people citing fringe sources as though because they are fringe it's a test for them not being included.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Let me put it this way: if I create a video about Obama being a Martian, post it to YouTube, and 5,000,000 people view it, is it reasonable to infer that this is a legitimate criticism? DKqwerty (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Wiki's rules require that if there are criticisms of the subject of an article, and if those criticisms can be reliably sourced, they can be included in the article. But, they should never be included in a separate section entitled "Criticism" or some other such thing, as doing so clearly violates NPOV.  QueenofBattle (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See: WP:V DKqwerty (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Reliable sourcing is but one of several inclusion thresholds. Others are relevancy, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc.  In order, reliable sourcing that children don't like broccoli is not included in the Obama article because it is not sourceable as being relevant to Obama, reliable sourcing that extremists consider Obama a puppet of the great Jewish conspiracy to take over America is not includable because there are very few people who seriously advance this theory, and reliable sourcing that Obama is possibly an anti-American communist tool is POV (although sourcing that Obama is considered any of the foregoing is includable in the sense of reporting an opinion).  Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I should point out that the American Left is more like the European Centrist, not European Left. Sceptre (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends on where you look, some places are actually more right-wing (but this is another discussion for another time). Soxwon (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Current" does not belong
I feel that the use of the term current in the sentience "Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States." does not belong. If people feel the need to state the chronology of his presidency I think it should be done by actual dates, for example January 20, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.16.148 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Introduction to this article is the standard Introduction for an article about a President of the United States. SMP0328. (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Current is also very pertinent since there are many *former* U.S. Presidents who are still living.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * B.S. Rusty! There arent many former U.S. Presidents living, name five!!!! --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Reminders
Civility and "Please Don't Bite the Newcomers (Rustydangerfield (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Also, please don't edit war, recognize that we are under article probation, and please use the talk page to discuss changes reasonably intended to improve the article, and not complaints about other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Presidential approval ratings
Here is a citation. Obama's approval rating as of early June per Gallup is flat from when he started office. Here's a link that goes into some more detail. There are lot of other sourced things one can say. One thing that can be said (although most articles about approval ratings do not say it) is that Obama's disapproval rating quickly shot up from 10% to something over 20% in a month, then slowly climbed to about 30%. On the face of it, that seems a lot more remarkable than his approval rating staying fairly stable over the period. But without an explanation that statistic is just a factoid. A statement and citation was removed that the first month of this climb reflects an increase in disapproval among Republicans - that would partly explain it. Is this normal? To be expected? Is it truly a noteworthy statistic? As I said most sources do not seem to find it worth noting, but on the surface it seems to raise questions. Most articles talking about presidential ratings tie dips and spikes, and longer-term patterns, to various events and policy decisions. In fact, the first article cites "no clear pattern" in presidential approval ratings generally, so it's questionable whether they mean much of anything. To that extent presidential approval is another layer of fallout from daily events, which in my opinion seems only indirectly related to the presidency. What is the relevance of an opinion poll? When all is done, the article may or may not have a brief mention of job performance polling. One thing for sure is that we should avoid edit warring. This is a relatively minor factoid. If you care to improve the article, one thing to do is to make sure the citations are in proper format and actually support the claims made. In the case of the disapproval rating it is a bad citation. Not only is it incomplete, it goes to a dynamic application that calls up a graph (which will change over time), and contains no text explanation of its numbers and is thus original research. Surely there is a better source if you want to find one for the factoid, but why include miscellaneous facts at all? Wikidemon (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't think approval or disapproval ratings are of any consequence, especially when coupled with the equally artificial milestone of the first one hundred days. Unless they're notably high or low, like if he were to swing into the high 80% or low 20%, they're nothing worth mentioning. Furthermore, the statement, "although this is mostly due to a decrease in support among Republicans," seems as if it's trying the excuse this uptick; there is no similar justification for his approval ratings, so why is it needed here? The source also deals with his first month, not one hundred days.
 * Regarding a "text explanation for the numbers", I'm not sure what you mean, but if you're referring to an explanation of methodology, I think Gallup has a track record for proper methodology. That's hardly the point though in regards to the article, it's just not encyclopedic content until the President has finished his term(s) in office and be put into proper historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKqwerty (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Joker123192 is quickly failing to get the point with his constant reversions against consensus (included immediately above), and with no explanation as to why. I see now that he/she has been blocked for edit warring, so we'll see if this calms things down.  DK has been a model contributor in this, for what it's worth.  The bit about Republican support is not relevant, in my estimation, and does seem to be a weak "explanation" for the increasing disapproval ratings.  The real reasons are probably due more to the normal ebb and flow of a presidency than to anything else.  QueenofBattle (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that we just need to say that according to polls, the public's opinion of Obama has remained at a steady 60 or whatever %. As the article says, the approval rating for Obama so far is not really extraordinary especially compared to past presidents. If he all of a sudden gets a 90% approval rating and it stays for a couple of years, that's worth mentioning, or if he all of a sudden had one of the lowest approval ratings of all the presidents. But right now, it's just at an average steady rating that is not considered extraordinary. Deavenger (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, his approval rating isn't anything special after the first 100 days. In fact it's only better than Bush II, Clinton and Nixon if I remember correctly. Also, the first 100 days rating is significant and isn't a number that was made up for fun [Why the First 100 Days Matters] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustydangerfield (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What you have just linked to is a blog post that amounts to an op-ed piece. It does not necessarily represent popular consensus on the subject. The "first 100 days" metric is only a basis by which to judge a president against past presidents' first 100 days, otherwise the 100 days is simply a nice, base ten milestone. Regardless, such comparisons are largely inappropriate for a biography. DKqwerty (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For crying out loud. There are thousands of reliable sources that can be cited on the 100 days topic, and since it is a gauge used to determine effectiveness against other presidents, it is extremely significant.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Why do approval ratings have anything to do with the biography at Barack Obama, instead of at the Presidency article at Presidency of Barack Obama? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

National Security Adviser James L. Jones: "I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger"
Change we can believe in, eh? 92.9.13.125 (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion for the article? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Good Damon 06:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I reckon something about Obama's National Security Adviser recently claiming that he "take orders" (whatever that means) from Henry Kissinger should be included here or perhaps, more appropriately, in the article on Obama's Presidency linked to from here. I'm sure a lot of people would be very interested to know that the Obama administration is apparently welcoming Kissinger into the camp. 92.9.13.125 (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That quotation is included in the James L. Jones article. However, I fail to see any context, or any relevance to Obama.  Do you have a citation to anything that discusses this?  Wikidemon (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if Jones is just acknowledging the efforts of previous National Security Advisors who were present at the speech. Claiming to still take orders from a former commander is a common trope in the military. As Wikidemon says, we'd need context before making anything of this. CouldOughta (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Close! (Stupid troll)--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Black president
In the first paragraph: "He is the first African American to hold the office." Why aren't we write black? In Europe this term "African American" is quite unknown. Feketelyuk (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'd guess you aren't have many African Americans in Europe. But now that one has become the President of the United States, perhaps the term will become more familiar to you.  Or not.  In the meantime, you can read the brief answer to Q2 in the FAQ box at the top of this page.  For further reading, you could Google the term.  Abrazame (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Drat, I only just now read the friendly reminders. Pardon me, my aren't is in your neck.  Abrazame (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a large debate over this; it should be in the archives for Nov/Dec 2008. Some editors thought multi-racial or biracial was the better term and the arguments were long and diverse. Many reliable sources from around the world did indeed describe Obama as America's first black president, but if one accepts African American and black as being synonymous, the overwhelming majority of sources used one of those terms. He's described as African American, rather than black, because that's the term more commonly used in American English, and in matters where there's some debate about which term to use, we often choose one on the basis of self-identification. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don´t have many African Americans, no, but I´d say the term is fairly well known.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When President Obama states his race
View the video "Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union'" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU President Obama is White and Kenyan--Antiedman (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama is a biracial American
He is the first Biracial American, the first person of Kenyan decent and first person of A Dark skin complexion.

My reference to this line is an video posted on the U.S.A's 44th presidents official YouTube page here is the referance in full: Barack Obama, Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union'. Time in which reference is taken from: 3min52sec to 3min59sec. Youtube posting of CNN video footage, March 18, 2008 located at web address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU.--Antiedman (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama staled that he was both Kenyan an white
the first person of Kenyan decent and first person of A Dark skin complexion.

My reference to this line is an video posted on the U.S.A's 44th presidents official YouTube page here is the referance in full: Barack Obama, Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union'. Time in which reference is taken from: 3min52sec to 3min59sec. Youtube posting of CNN video footage, March 18, 2008 located at web address http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiedman (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'll look at the FAQ on this talk page, question two, you can see the results of all of the previous discussions about this point. As for the video, I could produce a video where JFK identifies himself as a German, but that doesn't make it the most accurate way to describe it. Dayewalker (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He refers to himself as a "Berliner", not as a German. You point is so very disingenuous.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•

Presidency Section and the Sandbox, again
I was about to move the Presidency section text from the Sandbox to the main article, when someone put some good content in the article. I've transcribed the new stuff into the Sandbox text with minor revisions. However, to get it to flow, I had to put in the Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy sections we've [actually, I've] talked about. My primary original input (not original research, just new text) is in the Foreign Policy section. It also will be the part that will get the preponderance of POV complaints, I'm guessing-- I tried to be NPOV but the language may sound POVish. Also, please critique the citations. I'll be prompter in moving the text to the article once we have consensus. CouldOughta (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing my own input: There's slightly too much on the early legislation, but I'd propose not thinning it out until the presidency develops some more substance. "Foreign Policy" could benefit from mention of Obama's high early popularity ratings overseas, but the edits would be contentious so I'd rather wait until we have the section in place. I couldn't figure a better end to the North Korea part-- we're kind of in the middle of Obama's (and the world's) response, so I just said "it's a problem" and left it at that. CouldOughta (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing much response. I'll give it a few more hours, then assume consensus and move the new text to the article page. 71.179.10.162 (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got a few pages open at the moment and then have to run but I'll give it a look tomorrow or Thursday some time (very busy tomorrow). Anybody else?  To the anonymous editor above, a complete lack of response isn't consensus, it's rudeness.  (Just kidding, I've been marginally involved at the sandbox and encourage others—you?—to as well.)  Abrazame (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry; that was me. Didn't notice I wasn't logged in. CouldOughta (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I like it. Clear, concise, delineated, and doesn't deviate into ancillary, non-biographical subject matter. My only concern is the sentence, "In February and March Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made separate overseas trips to announce a 'new era' in U.S. foreign relations with Russia and Europe, using the terms 'break' and 'reset' to signal major changes from the policies of the preceding administration." It seems related more to the administration because the were acting without Obama, as he did not participate in that trip (to the best of my recollection); while relevant to his presidency, it's not nearly as relevant to his biography. Otherwise, a great exploration of important events in his presidency so far while remaining mostly biographical. Regarding N. Korea: seems fine to me, there really is much to say at this point so anything more would be over-playing the situation. I will add a reference to May's nuclear test for posterity. DKqwerty (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean-- it wasn't actually Obama on the trips, and this is a biography of Obama. I feel that it needs inclusion because the bio of a President has to include his major Presidential initiatives, and these visits were the starting gambit in his attempt to change foreign policy.  Also, he often uses his presidency as evidence of a major change in America, and these 'reset' initiatives were an example of the use of this theme (not strongly pushed at the time, but present).  Explicit discussion of this theme of Obama's belongs in the Public Image section, but it's nice to have an example here.


 * Ultimately we'll probably shorten this, as we see and cover the effects and successes of these policies, but at the moment it's his main foreign policy effort, along with the recent speeches. Thanks for the nuclear reference. CouldOughta (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "...these visits were the starting gambit in his attempt to change foreign policy." Okay, makes sense then. But maybe that section should say something to that effect to emphasize why it's included. Just to avoid confusion like mine. DKqwerty (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll hold off on updating the article at least until we hear from Abrazame. CouldOughta (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if the North Korean missile tests are really only notable to posterity by our suggesting it to be so. In other words, I don't think we want to be promoting the idea that any country that unsurprisingly breaks the nuclear test ban treaty (particularly North Korea) automatically becomes notable to the biography of the American president.  On his desk, yes; in his Wiki bio?  This is no Cuban Missile Crisis or 9/11 kind of earth-stopping and historically significant test of, and detour for the biography of, a president and the history of the world.  Not that that is the threshold for article inclusion but, you know what I'm saying?  Are we going to mention his response thus far to the Iraqi election, which is far more significant of an event (the election, not his response), or his response to Netanyahu's recent endorsement of a Palestinian state?  Even if those events are not, well, eventful, they are more of a unique and unusual and potentially world-changing development in and of themselves.  Was this news much after those respective weeks?  Whether they bear noting in Obama's bio, however, is no less reasonable to contemplate before putting it into the article.  Abrazame (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's time for philosophy. It seems a practical necessity to keep the article a few weeks behind the times, to let events develop, avoid WP:RECENT and drive-by editors reacting to current events.  Beyond that, my inclination is to keep the section in a state where, if Obama suddenly dropped dead, we could add the most recent month's events and conclude "...and then he dropped dead."  If he dropped dead right now, then repeated challenges from North Korea would indeed have been a major part of his tragically truncated presidency.  A year from now we'll know whether the North Korea thing was just another saber-rattling event and if so we should delete it as minor compared to other foreign-policy events, such as the democratization of Iran and the admission of Google to the United Nations. CouldOughta (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In a friendly and collegial spirit: I love discussing philosophy but my objection was based on characterization. The sources you cite don't raise the North Korean actions to the level of a "challenge to Obama".  While I'm sure someone could find a source that did, I don't think that is much less POV than some of the other things we routinely dismiss as unencyclopedic.  For example, the ref characterizes that "North Korea defied the international community" with its launch, not the President of the U.S.  Should we add the launch to the Angela Merkel article as a test of her leadership as well?  Obama himself is characterized in the ref as saying "its rocket launch poses a global threat that warrants a United Nations Security Council response".  Secretary of State Clinton has called these "continuing provocative actions", which I think is the point: these are continuing provocative actions by Kim Jong-Il against the international community, similar to the 2006 test, which I don't believe anybody has encyclopedically characterized as a "challenge to George W. Bush", even though he was the one who declared them part of an Axis of Evil.  You (and I) may view the seemingly impending nuclearization of North Korea as one of the major challenges of our time.  You and I may acknowledge that the President of the U.S. is the leader of the free world.  But by this point in their development I don't think we should be making the leap to seeing this as a challenge to Obama.  And neither do those refs.  (If we were to say anything, we should be saying X happened and Obama/Clinton/the U.N./etc. said or did this in response.)


 * I have a thought about the stimulus package to run by you. In an effort to explain this issue to people who may believe that was already spent long ago and we're living in its aftermath, is there somewhere to find out how much of the $787 billion has already been spent, and we could update it weekly or monthly or as our source gets updated?  Not details of what or where or to whom, which is far too much detail here, but I know that I've heard or read somewhere that an amazingly small percentage—was it 9% a couple weeks ago?—has been spent so far on "shovel-ready" stuff.  With bids finally being approved for contracts (3-month bid window to ensure we get the best deal) a lot more will start going out.  I think people aren't aware of the movement of the money and are just overhearing partisan hyperbole rather than information, data.


 * That could get slightly more coverage (even a graph?) over at Presidency, but just be touched on here at the bio.


 * I think we should add something in the Domestic Policy section about his speech to the AMA in the interest of promoting his health care overhaul.


 * Later tonight I can probably try and source this last one and add it myself if someone doesn't do so beforehand. Does anybody have a source for the amount of the stimulus that's gone out?  Is there a government website that tracks these things?  Is the GAO on top of this this early on along the curve?  If anybody knows (am I still kidding myself there's more than two people reading this?!), and doesn't want to take the time to write the piece, please give me the link and I'll go over and read it and try to translate it or format it here.


 * These are quick ideas off the top of my head. I had a couple others that I think may be better expounded on at Presidency.  I'll respond to any specific feedback and then read the whole thing again to see if I have any other issues with what's already there before starting on one or more of these things tonight.  Abrazame (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First, it's great to have this discussion going on. Second, Here's another link to the sandbox so we don't have to scroll way up to the link above.
 * Maybe "repeated challenges" isn't the right wording for the N. Korea thing. I didn't want to imply that the Korean actions were intended as a challenge to the American president, just that their actions were a problem that required his response.  Like, their actions were a challenge in the same way that the economic crisis is a challenge.  Different wording might be called for-- I'll look at it tonight.  I'll also look at improving the state visits section per DKqwerty's comments.
 * The speech to the AMA looks like Act One of the White House push on health care, so either the speech itself or some other early initiative should be included soon, though I'm now sure it should be this week-- like I say, my inclination (remembering always that I'm just one editor) is to allow a few weeks of settling time between an event and its inclusion here. CouldOughta (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for the near future-- when you look at the Domestic section, imagining that we've added the start of the health care push, do you see any good further topical subdivision? We might use Health, Justice and Science for what we have now.  I ask because a topical organization will help keep the section from devolving into a chronological list of White House actions.CouldOughta (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your notion on the stimulus is complicated. Let me look tonight.CouldOughta (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this help anything on the N. Korea subject: . Also adds citation for the detainment and sentencing of the American journalists as a provocative challenge. DKqwerty (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I lied; I updated the North Korea entry with the above reference; it's very recent but it fits well into the text. Holding off on the AMA speech and stimulus at least till tomorrow.  CouldOughta (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The stim bit doesn't have to be complicated, but we need a little bit of data. There are people tearing their hair out over the $787 billion (H.R. 1). Do you know that since the recession began (late 2007) the Bush and Obama administrations have committed almost $11 Trillion to stimulate the economy and/or prevent the devastation of American banking and business and a depression? But that doesn't mean people should start tearing each other's hair out. I say "committed" because we haven't actually spent the $11 Trillion, we've "only" spent $2.7 Trillion as of June 15, 2009. People keep hearing about all this money for this, all this money for that, but they don't realize it's not actually all been spent. Some is simply "committed", so that if it's needed it's there. Some, as I noted, is already being paid back. Some, as I'm trying to point out, hasn't yet been spent but will be as the months and years go on, and some of it may never be spent.

TARP, for example, was a $700 Billion program of which only $364.2 Billion has gone out and $70.1 Billion has already been returned.

The lion's share is for the Fed, which committed $6.2 Trillion and has only spent $1.4 Trillion.

My source doesn't specify how much of H.R. 1's $787 Billion has been spent. For anybody interested, the source is CNN.

A June 8 source tells me the CBO estimates 5% of H.R. 1 has been spent and that the White House estimates it as 14%. I'm looking for a better source on that. June 9, Obama said he was not satisfied with the pace and called on cabinet members to accelerate the spending. (The Wall Street Journal ) That detail may be best for Presidency. The GAO points out in a handy graph that of the $280 Billion Recovery Act segment of the Stimulus (paid out through the states) only about $50 Billion will be spent in 2009, with the most, $110 Billion, in 2010 and another $65 Billion or so in 2011 before sharply petering out (maybe $23 Billion in 2012 and less through 2016). That PDF is here.

I present thise to point out there are notable sources with raw data (as opposed to the characterizations so frequently part of additions here). If someone has conflicting or newer data, let me know. Otherwise I've done a rewrite which I will cite with these refs in the next day or so and see how it works in the Sandbox. If I/we whittle it down for the bio perhaps we can add the unabridged version to Presidency.

Then interested parties can update the figure, with new refs, every few months as available. Perhaps Presidency could leave the older refs to show how much was spent each quarter or each year and the bio could replace older refs with newer ones. In the meantime, the point is made that this stimulus is a work in progress intended to continue to irrigate the economy over the course of several years.

I have more to say about North Korea but thought I'd focus on this topic for the moment. Perhaps we should split this discussion into headed sections, one thread for North Korea, one for the Stimulus, etc., with the Sandbox linked from each? That might draw editors interested in contributing or commenting on those issues but for whatever reason confused or put off by the Sandbox concept and the mass of text. Gotta run, won't be back until late Friday or sometime Saturday. Best, Abrazame (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame, I started to write that I couldn't see a good way to add any stimulus numbers, but then I thought of one. It's very short, and should be updated at the end of the month and rewritten to run through July 18th (the administration's 6-month point) a month from now. But it's OK for the present. I also added a little more on the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. The article is a little shy on the health care front, but I propose that we update now and revise when the battle has progressed. Regarding Brothejr's point below about page size, I disagree and I agree. The added text isn't that much; it looks like a big expansion, I think, because of the added whitespace caused by the new headings. But I agree that the article is longish. I looked at the text and I think we could cut 5%-15% just by trimming the prose. So after we do the Presidency update, I want to copy the Barack Obama section (i.e. the first sedction) to the sandbox and just tighten up the language, then move on to subsequent sections. I don't want to touch the lede; it's based on a reasonable consensus. CouldOughta (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight
Can someone go through CoM's recent alterations to the sandbox? While some of the edits I looked at seemed fine (though picky), I get nervous when that guy starts editing this article because it A) usually gets reverted and B) usually starts a heated debate that consists of his declaration that everyone else has POV conflicts. I don't have enough time today to go through the edits, nor do I fancy myself an expert, so I'd rather someone else take the lead on this one. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

CoM, DKqwerty, all those edits were fine. I subtweaked a couple of the tweaks and fixed a link. I don't care for one change, the Foreign Policy one, but I wasn't terribly happy with the original so I'll try for a new improvement later today. I haven't carefully considered CoM's comments at the end, which regard two (I think) subjects that CoM thinks need expansion. I'll look at that later today, too. My first gut reaction is to avoid being ambitious and add less rather than more, get this out of the Sandbox and into the article, and then repeat the improvement cycle (except that I'd first trim the prose in the rest of the article, starting with Early Life). But I'll look. Thanks to you both. CouldOughta (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't want a string of edits to obscure a single inappropriate edit that then makes it to the article. To make it clear: I'm not saying he would have done anything maliciously, but his edits have a tendency to cause disputes revolving around (N)POV.
 * At this point, I think we need to make a final assessment and move it to the main article. This kind of add/revise stage can be wholly cyclical for an important person whose life makes news daily, like a president. I don't want to just shove it out inappropriately, but there's always something more to add, and the longer we wait, there's only even more to add. DKqwerty (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I tweaked the North Korea part; I added a ref that called the Korean actions a "challenge" for Obama, which enabled some more biography-like language. My crude idea of what to do next would be to copy the text in the Sandbox and paste it over the text in the article. But should I then just delete the sandbox text? Is there a way to save it, say by compressing it the way old discussion threads are hidden on this page but viewable by clicking a "show" button? If we did that, then the old text would be available for discussion but not clutter the page. Or is there a better way? My editing skills are pretty crude. CouldOughta (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Ah! A little experimentation has revealed the hat/hab thingie inside curly brackets that hides the text-- must mean "Has Been Archived". So the text can be hidden with a label saying "Presidency section text moved to article dd/mm/yyyy." Maybe after the text is accepted the discussion can be copied & compressed along with it. Maybe? CouldOughta (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Page Size
So far, the work on the proposed presidency section is looking good. However, one thing I noticed is the section's proposed size. While I do agree that we should expand the section and add new stuff too it, but before anyone tries to update and add all that stuff to the article, editors should first take a look at the article and remove some of the older stuff to make room for the presidency article. The article is already huge and adding even more info would blow it up even more. Brothejr (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Brothejr, see my response above about trimming the article. We can do it. CouldOughta (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that fully more than half of this article is not article at all, but references—not to mention infoboxes and categories. There may well be good reason to double-ref some of these claims, but I'm shocked at the number of statements in the article that are double, triple, and even quadruple-referenced.


 * As some of this may be the result of contention, consensus, or complexities and shadings in the statement that are not all found in a single ref, I would request that editors familiar with these sections make a quick review and remove extraneous duplicate references, and that future additions to the article only reference as many sources as are necessary to support the statement. In most cases, if the source is truly legitimate and notable then we shouldn't need to bolster it with additional sources simply for corroboration.


 * To be honest, I haven't sat down and read the article top to bottom in quite some time. Glancing at it, I certainly agree that a couple of sections here and there could be streamlined while conveying the same balance and information and am willing to help with that after we make sure that what we're adding is the best it can be.


 * However, Wiki articles have guidelines for length, and without all the references, infoboxes and categories, the readable text of the article is 35 Kilobytes long, not the 142 Kilobytes it seems to be at first glance. 35 K is a reasonable article length for a subject like the bio of Barack Obama.  The article does a pretty good job of splitting things into sections and subsections so interested parties can skim past what they don't want and hopefully find what they do.  I think it's worth fine-tuning for length, but it's not anywhere near as necessary as it may seem.


 * To be clear, the Sandbox section isn't appended to the Presidency section, it replaces what's currently in that section. Abrazame (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned before, I've been cool with how the presidency section is going to turn out and I also understand what you are saying. Sounds like a good idea with me. Brothejr (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Translation of Obama's Name
When I tried to list the Arabic translation of Obama's name, it was immediately deleted. I understand a lot of people will take this the wrong way, but these are people with unduly prejudicial views no matter what. Fact of the matter is, his name is of Arabic origin, and there should be no inherent controversy in referring to another language so as to reflect the linguistic origins of a name. Thoughts?

--judicator

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicator700 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One issue is that you put this translation into the function that is reserved for pronunciation (see IPA_for_English). Not sure if this information will be germane for the article as we don't typically discuss name origins on BLP articles (though it may be applicable for an article regarding the name Barack and/or the name Obama), but do you have reliable sourcing for the Arabic origin claim, and the translation itself? thanks, --guyzero | talk 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Information might be more appropriate here: Barack (given name). No article yet on Obama (surname). --guyzero | talk 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

guyzero,

Thank you for the candid response. Here is the deal with the name. Barack is a Swahili name with an Arabic root that translates into "blessed." The Arabic word "Hussein" roughly translates into "good." The last name "Obama" is fairly common amongst the Luo Tribe of Kenya. As is already noted, his father's name is also Barack Hussein Obama. His grandfather's name is Hussein, which accounts for his father's (and his own) middle name. To me, this information does not, in and of itself, present POV problems, and it reflects the President's cultural heritage through noting the linguistic origins of his name. (The article does note this cultural heritage as it is...this is just a different approach toward doing this.)

The most concise description of his name comes from islam.about.com...here is the direct link: http://islam.about.com/od/us2004election/f/obama.htm. The source is reliable, and, no, it shouldn't start up any of the "he's a Muslim talk" that plagued the page for a while, because it accurately notes that's not his religion. Still, if, as you say, the information is not germane for this article, I can move it to a more appropriate location. Dictionary citations might be more appropriate too for sourcing purposes, and this can be linked in, but the about.com article is just the most concise.

-judicator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicator700 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi judicator, thanks for the reply and I understand and appreciate your approach. This information is interesting, but I'm not sure if we commonly (or ever?) provide root information for people's names on their BLP. I'm sure you'll get more input in this regard from other folks. One additional note is that there are some reliability issues with About.com, please see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and an example of an issue breakdown here. The conclusion at the noticeboard seems to basically be "generally not reliable, but sometimes" -- and I can't tell at a glance which category this link falls into. Presumably there might be some other reliable sourcing other there..? kind regards, --guyzero | talk 19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please note that you can check out previous similar discussions from the history of this talkpage by searching on Arabic in the box marked Search Archives at the top of the page. regards, --guyzero | talk 19:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is totally irrelevant and seem like a bad attempt at trolling. My name is Hebrew and yet people with my name who have pages on Wikipedia don't have the Hebrew translation by there name, correct? Unless they speak Hebrew or are of Jewish decent. Why should Obama’s name be any different?--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable information. One, a lot of it's the 'scary arabic name' meme. Two, He has no control over what he was named, nor has his name alone particularly mattered, with the exception of the right wing 'Hussein' scare tactic, so unlike his race, which he also had no control over but he has written extensively about its effect on his life and thinking, his name's meaning doesn't do anything to reflect on him. Three, I recall hearing that Barack is not from the Arabic, but from a Kenyan word meaning something else, and misspelled by a vowel, making it look like the 'Barack' of Arabic. ThuranX (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to close this, any one objects please feel free to revert with a proper reason.--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Obama articles
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors are to take note of the following restrictions in place for Obama-related articles :


 * ,, , and  are admonished for their edit-warring. Furthermore, they shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
 * In addition, and  are topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.

Also take note with regards to the existing Article Probation set forth by the community :


 * The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 16:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I know the top part is cluttered so I'm not sure if you guys want the topic ban notice to the inserted. - Mailer Diablo 16:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrm, well now that the major WND-instigated push is behind us, the FAQ could probably be collapsed by default, as I believe it was before all that happened. That'd shrink it a bit. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not likely. There will always be people inserting the same tired crap into this article. As it stands, the expanded FAQ doesn't seem to deter a lot people from adding oft-discussed and rejected content, so it's probably best to leave it as is in the hopes that at least a few be will be sensible enough to read and abide by it. DKqwerty (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to know whether it helps or not to have the FAQ expanded, really. In the spirit of using the talk page for article improvements rather than behavioral or other meta-discussions, I would suggest we avoid a long-term posting of any arbitration editing restrictions on this particular page.  The affected editors are well aware.  I do think we should keep a conspicuous link to a notice that the article is under article probation.  The article probation landing page can point to the arbcom case, any talk about probation, general sanctions, arbcom enforcement, etc.  For the duration of the working group efforts we can have a notice here on this page of that activity for as long as it continues, as a courtesy to interested editors who may not know.  Most likely any protocol the group creates would fold into article probation so a single link to the article probation landing page is sufficient, but if they set up any special notice boards or other meta-pages we can link to them as well.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilink overkill
This article's far too heavily Wikilinked. Scribner (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which wikilinks would you remove from the article? SMP0328. (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Presidency Section Update, 6-24-09
I updated the presidency section by copying the sandbox text per the discussion above. I then compressed the text on the sandbox page, and also copied the talk page discussions about the sandbox from this page to the sandbox and compressed them, too. (I didn't remove them from this page; they're still up there). This is an experiment with a new approach to editing this page-- working out revisions on the sandbox to discourage edit warring on the page itself. Please look at the discussion before editing the section heavily. CouldOughta (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama fly swatting incident
Is article Barack Obama fly swatting incident necessary? Seems like a footnote at best. Dynablaster (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That article has been deleted. SMP0328. (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"African American"
Obama's ethnicity (or "race, if you will) is sufficiently and correctly covered in the "Early life" section. It is not relevant to his ability, or lack thereof, to hold the office of President, nor is is it the reason he was elected, and is therefore not an appropriate comment for the lead of the article.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   00:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Being the first African American president of the US is a huge deal, a game changer. I find it most appropriate to note.  Whatever their opinion on politics and the man personally, most people in America and the world see that a major, positive event.  That isn't a question of his abilities, qualifications, or why he was elected.  But that's not the focus of the article - this is a bio of the individual, not specifically his presidency (there is another article for that).  Being the first is very important to our understanding of him as a person, and of race in America.  But don't take my word for it, like everything else here the weight is established by sourcing.  As a hint of that there are 14K google news hits (as of now, given my cookies and settings) for Obama being the "first black president" and 7,000 for being the "first African-American president".  Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then explain why it's so important; don't just toss it in as a random factoid, especially in the lead. Being the first so-called "African American" is not that big of a deal to the average person who comes here for information about this person, and like I've said, his heritage is sufficiently and correctly covered in the body of the article.   The mention of "first African American" in the lead is merely POV pushing and needs to stop.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   00:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It ought to be obvious why being the first black president is a big deal for many people. You know, a major step in America's overcoming centuries of slavery, racism, exclusion, and all that?  I don't feel like arguing this point extensively.  Whether you or I agree or not, it's clearly on people's minds and the job of the encyclopedia is to describe the world as it is (per reliable sources), not the world as one logically thinks it should be.  Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia is read by countless millions of people all over the world, who won't understand a brief, incongruous comment thrown into the lead out of context; the things you state are only of interest to some Americans.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a big deal the world over. If non-Americans don't understand race in America, well, that's what an encyclopedia is for.  To that end, the second mention of race in the lead links to the List of African-American firsts article.  As I said, I don't care to debate this point.  Just trying to explain.Wikidemon (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If we removed it, half the IPs who visit this article will try to add it. Jackie Robinson's article says he was "the first African-American Major League Baseball player&hellip;", Thurgood Marshall's says he was "the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States", and Colin Powell's states he was "the first African American appointed to [his] position". It's of notable historical importance and there's no reason not to have it. DKqwerty (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Radiopathy, sorry but I disagree with you on every point. It's notable, relevant, and is a NPOV fact. Dayewalker (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This user's logic is flawed, the lead is a summarization of the article. Nothing will come of this discussion, so lets move on.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you say so, huh? Let the discussion continue!  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to read: WP:LEAD and please take note what it says in the lead intro to the policy. Brothejr (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out that this is a pattern that should be discussed in its broader context. Radiopathy has also deleted the statement that John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic president in the lead of his bio.  These firsts were notable at the time of their candidacy, notable at the time they became the Democratic nominee, and notable at the time they won the election and were inaugurated.  It was a source of pride for people who shared that quality and it was a source of pride for people who share a belief in equality, both in this country and around the world.  One could certainly argue that it is less relevant to Kennedy or Obama than it is to the populace who were ready to move past that glass ceiling, as there were presumably Catholics and African Americans capable of holding the office before these two men, but they were either dissuaded from running or were not nominated or elected.  It is undeniably relevant to their respective bios that they were the right man with the right qualities at the right time to surmount those obstacles which, while still popularly perceived, were ready to fall.


 * To respond directly to the logic of the reason given (relevance "to his ability, or lack thereof, to hold the office") I would point out that the only four things relevant to either man's ability to hold the office are his date and place of birth and the fact that he won the nomination of his party and the general election. Still, a lead reduced to those four things would be unsuitable.  As to POV, there is no point of view from which they were not the first.  We don't explain why any of the other things in the lead are important, but perhaps there is a place for a detailed, sourced examination about why it was important that not every single president reaching through four different centuries was a white Protestant male.  Arguably that deeper examination is best handled in a satellite article.  Abrazame (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I happen to be Roman Catholic myself, but it's not the first thing I want people to know about me, mostly because, in the big picture of who I am, it's not that important.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   01:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, look at this. Any idea why linked to this edit?  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   01:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you were to become President, it wouldn't be that important either. JFK already broke the ground on that one. Dayewalker (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please strike through that last one! Good Lord!  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   01:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Dayewalker, I would guess that the second or third in 220 years would be notable enough to mention. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was notable as being the second female Supreme Court justice.  Sotomayor will be notable as being the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.  As I wrote a moment ago, it is not about being qualified (which all of these people and surely hundreds before them have been), it is about being considered qualified by those who not long ago would not have done so, be that some obscure nominating committee or the general electorate.


 * In response to Radiopathy, respectfully, this isn't about us, it's about them and the larger culture. Increasingly the "all men are created equal" line in our founding document has embraced a wider segment of the citizens of this country.  Slowly, grudgingly, and often not representing the will of the majority.  But then, that's why we're a Constitutional Republic and not a pure Democracy.  There was supposed to be no tyranny of the majority here.


 * Which brings me to refute another comment you made—that people from other nations have no basis to comprehend the significance. The vast majority of nations around the world have never democratically elected someone from a racial minority group to be their country's leader.  Such a thing becomes a statement beyond words, one that transcends barriers of culture, language and vernacular.  Abrazame (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If Hillary had won the nomination and election, would a mention of her being the first woman president be a wrong thing to put in the lead?Of course not, it shows that the people voting during during the nomination and general election were ready for her.The same thing apples to Obama, Being the first African American or black in the US is a important fact seeing as to how the people of Obama's color were treated until a little more then a hundred ago.And seeing as how in some cases a African American person with the same qualifications as a white person does not get the job because of his skin color it does matter.It may not affect his abilities but some people might argue that his skin color might be one of the reasons he was elected.And just because you might not find being a Roman Catholic  during  JFK's time unimportant does not mean other people see it your way.Durga Dido (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter whether or not anyone here can prove that it is important that Obama is the first black US president. What matters is how the reliable sources chose to describe him. Luckily, the archives contain many links to sources - newspapers from around the world, for example - that chose to describe him as the "first black" or "first African American" to hold the office. Obviously a lot of sources hold the opinion that this is important information and worthy of note.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)