Talk:Social media use by Barack Obama/Archive 1

Twitter activity about Obama other than him and staff running his accunts
Do things like the July 4th, 2011 Obama death hoax and his Jackass statement seem germane to this page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"official Twitter account for United States President Barack Obama and is used for his election efforts"
Forgive me if this has already been discussed here or elsewhere, but this account is his campaign account, not an account used by him in his role as President. This phrasing makes it (falsely) sound as though Obama were appropriating a government resource for campaign purposes. I don't want to just change it willy nilly, but I think better phrasing might be something like "United States President Barack Obama has two Twitter accounts - one used by his reelection campaign (@BarackObama) and one used in his capacity as President (@WhiteHouse)." --B (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be an incorrect and misleading change. He has one account and the US government has another one that he uses. In either 7 months or 4 years and 7 months, he will relinquish the govt's account.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Kanye West photo
The Kanya West/Taylor Swift non-free photo does not seem to fit very well into this article. The non-free rational provided on the file File:Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg does not help as it is basically a copy paste of the other rationals. Not sure how it meets WP:NFC. AIR corn (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am about to go to sleep. I will work on the FUR in the morning.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs an opinion
Seriously, I don't see any general opinions and analyses about use of Twitter by Obama as a whole. --George Ho (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Broadening scope of this article
I don't know why this article must collect excessive information about use of Twitter by Obama. Why not inserting any other media by Obama, like Youtube and Facebook? Therefore, this article could be renamed into Barack Obama on social media. --George Ho (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not the proper point for the tag that was added. That tag would be relevant for an article that does not cover its topic broadly. An article is not suppose to include information on topics that it is not about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is possible to change the article's scope and then rename it. Look at ; separately, they were and, but I renamed "Glen Charles" into "Glen and Les Charles". --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that it is not possible to broaden the scope of this article. I am just saying that the tag that you used is not appropriate for that end.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added "too few opinions" because, if you want this article to be solely about Obama-Twitter, this topic lacks one right now. Why inappropiate? Look, we can discuss that in another section about needing opinions about Obama's use of Twitter in general. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that the topic of Obama on Twitter is not covered or that the topic should be expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to support this stand-alone article, before expanding, there must be irrelevant information to remove from this article. Also, some relevant information must be copied and pasted into other related articles. Unfortunately, the whole article contains many irrelevant information, such as some Fox News controversy and Twitter responses from other candidates of 2012. --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In the previous comment, I assumed you are talking only about Twitter article. Anyway, unfortunately, renaming this article would be done after adding YouTube, Facebook, and other social media in this article. I would say, as I said, trim down irrelevant stuff and then add in other things that Obama uses, like Blackberry. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of YouTube, Facebook, and other social media, you have made no points that this article is missing content regarding Twitter activity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, where are opinions about Obama-Twitter use in general? --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a movie with reviews. This article is a summary of facts and events. Have you ever seen a WP article that did not have critical commentary?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Biographies? Even small biographies, for example? How is this article a biography if this article mainly discusses Obama's Twitter use? --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Too few opinions" does not imply expansion; well, it means a need of a significant analysis. As for the articles without critical commentary, mushroom and cat explain human interaction without commentary... I think. Also, fruit comes in mind with human interaction. The Twitter account by a specific human has human interaction but is nothing compared to Twitter itself. Mushroom, cat, and fruit explain such diversity and impact. Twitter explains generally growth and impact, as well. The Twitter account, however, is nothing compared to apple and orange and should not be based on inhereted notability of one person, unless one specific account made general impact, like horse ebooks. This Obama-Twitter article... has no hint of general impact (and even specific, as well). --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have yet to demonstrate why it is mandatory for this article to have critical commentary--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama's account is a work, and there is work involved. Regardless of deactivating a Twitter account, a Twitter account may still be a work. Twitter communication is still a work, which collects self-publications from everyone, including replies. If an account is not a work, how do you call it? --George Ho (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The actual page is about as much a work as compiled press clippings are a work. However, the article is about controversies surrounding the "work", history of the "work", etc. I am not really sure critical reviews are really necessary. There are general social media power rankings and things that rate or rank the effectiveness of his use of social media, but I don't think there is anything twitter-specific.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole article, including controversy, excessively discusses a production of work, Twitter replies towards a work (following and posting replies, for example), and violating owner's property. While some information has value, the whole article cannot discuss merely a work and production of a work. Per WP:IINFO, non-fictional work, like Twitter account, must have critical commentary, like fiction. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand WTF you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase: this article talks about only writing of a work, including history and replies to Obama's account on Twitter. How does controversy suffice coverage and balance? --George Ho (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Great: an attempt to summarize this article into main Obama article has failed. From Wikidemon: "Appears to be a trivialism vis-a-vis the life and times of the President, not terribly relevant or significant to the subject of this article, whatever the status of that particular article." Into where else is this article suitable? --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, Tony's not the first person to be confused by George here, I think. As to this question, there really isn't room in the main article; I recommend 'Campaign, 2008', 'Public Image' (maybe 'Presidency') and possibly 'Campaign 2012', if anything fits there. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which subarticles? --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012, Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008. Public_image_of_Barack_Obama? Mind you, don't just go dropping paragraphs in, probably something can be drafted on the talk pages if any of those articles seem appropriate...Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Stroke out what confuses people here. Well, I don't know what this article mainly discusses. It discusses what Obama did by using Twitter, but... if Twitter is not a "work", what do you call it? --George Ho (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I support broadening this article into a truly encyclopedic article about Obama's usage of social media and his communication strategy in general.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs a GA reassessment
This article is a Good Article, but, due to AFD chaos, I'm afraid reassessment is needed, even though there was no consensus to delete and no consensus to keep. I wonder what is wrong with this article as GA. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Was it decided in the consensus to move the page to "Communications of Barack Obama"? Article is on Obama's Twitter use, that title was better! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  20:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was but it doesn't need to be so narrow and it can be improved through expanding it to cover twitter and another medium like facebook or youtube. I feel this x on twitter largely survived since there was some merit to a scholarly argument regarding the historic usage of twitter by obama, and that usage includes other media, therefore expanding it to include such media should be a priority.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I like this title more; maybe we can get rid of excessive stuff on Twitter and insert YouTube and Facebook uses by Obama. --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes let's shave off the bs, especially the statistics section and add in facebook and youtube at the very least, but let's not get crazy and add in every social network in the world he has, just the ones that have been associated with some significant campaigning and noteworhtyness, we should set the bar high.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are trying to avert consensus George. There has been no consensus to change the focus of the article. The consensus has been to retain the current article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which consensus? There was only an AfD for merge/keep/delete, rename was never considered. Furthermore the discussion closed "without consensus" so avoiding "no consensus" is actually impossible.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The page move is a thinly veiled attempt to pick a fight after the AFD failed. The immediacy of the action without any attempt to gain consensus for such a drastic change to the article is not proper procedure. You are attempting to totally change the topic of a stable article. The page should remain at Barack Obama on Twitter until there is consensus to move the page elsewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to keep this article as is, either, even with expansions that you are trying to do. We want it broadened, but you keep interfering just because you want your work praised. --George Ho (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did he remove the new intro I added in? If so let's discuss this, establish a consensus on how to proceed and let's work together to overhaul this article into a more suitable form that might actually make it to GA or FALuciferWildCat (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now removed the content. Please propose at WP:RM.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the title changes, then it'll be difficult to save GA tag, the article is on Twitter usage, not Obama's all communication! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The GA tag was probably lost with the AfD, sorry about that, but in any case this is wikipedia and their is never any prejudice against reapplying for that status or better yet, rewriting it even better and getting FA status in the end.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be none of my concern. The Twitter account doesn't deserve to be GA, anyway, no matter how well-written and well-cited it is. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would never have been featured because it was not something most people would say "they can be proud of".LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the controversial nature of the topic of this page, you should create your version of a proposed article in your own user space. This article should be returned to Barack Obama on Twitter in the meantime.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no controversial anything here. There is a version of this article and I have renamed and incorporated it. There is actually emerging consensus for thisLuciferWildCat (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I got news for you: I'm not that interested on politics right now. Let's have Lucifer and you take care of this. However, I would be glad to discuss this topic. I'm sorry, but I'm going to request a move rather than make a technical RM. --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Communications of Barack Obama is a horrible title and way too broad. At the very least, Barack Obama on social media was a better choice. However, I do not agree with the idea of a GA reassessment. The article was reviewed as it is now and it passed. Therefor, it is still GA status because it is still the exact same. The AfD doesn't infringe on that at all, plenty of articles GA or FA have been taken to AfD. The result (other than Delete or Merge) doesn't affect their status. Silver  seren C 20:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, besides good writing and reference, what other criteria are passed? --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not too broad at all, broad is good, avoids splintering of every social media and every white house correspondent. It would fill our needs well and also be an unambiguously notable topic.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection
I've reverted the article to the version as of the close of the AfD and protected it for 3 days to allow heads to cool. In the mean time, I suggest people discuss whether to broaden or to move the article. I note that the AfD closed with no consensus. This is an opportunity to reach one.

Once the page protection has expired, please do not return to bold moves or restructurings of the article. -- RA (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested Edit
Please can an administrator remove the following from the Infobox;

Thanks! ⇒ T A  P  16:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- RA (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Make this article broader?
The prior version was an attempt to broaden the scope of this article. This current version is too narrow and about Twitter use by Obama. Communications of Barack Obama seems like a good choice, but people want Barack Obama on social media. However, this article can't stay forever as an article about one thing. This article needs broader scope, like use of Blackberry, YouTube, Facebook, etc. --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is again attempt to avert process. The prior version was a post-AFD attempt to overhaul an article out of frustration that it survived an AFD. The current article is the stable version. The prior version was a rushed WP:LEAD augmentation without any change to the prose in the body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is bullshit, overhauling an article is to improve it. The Village Pump has established consensus to broaden to cover communications/social media not just twitter, as has this page. I did edit the prose and body and was working on it, saying I didn't when you were the [---] erasing every letter I typed is highly disingenuous.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have declined the RFC tag because this is becoming a matter of content dispute. If this goes any further, I'm taking this to WP:dispute resolution noticeboard. However, there you must be calm! --George Ho (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Never mind; the noticeboard is for simple disputes. This is too complex. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG this seems to be entering OWN issues, any edit I am making here is being immediately deleted or reverted and that goes against the predominant opinion here and at the Village Pump which is to broaden the scope of this twitter article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added User:Luciferwildcat/sandbox/Communications of Barack Obama, just in case. I've blurted out the non-free images and categories without removing them. --George Ho (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, there's no way you could have determined the 'prevailing opinion' for everything that happened here in less than the time it takes someone to have a good night's sleep. The Sandbox will be a much better way to propose 'overhauls', and you have a good bit of time to gather sources and integrate them into what you want the article to look like now it's protected, eh LWC? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I call bullshit. The sandbox is for new articles not for editing. This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, we need a litterbox for your language.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You both need to more relexed about this issue, it not just the words used but also the tone of writing when commenting to each other. As to the article it seems to have penlty of content and refs for this to just be a twitter article. I think the sandbox is a great idea, it may end up that it is better to have two articles, as long as it's not just duplicating content from the first. SD (talk contribs) 00:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rather than making personal attacks, both of you two must try to sort out your differences and figure out what can be done in the best interests of this article. 117.194.96.56 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Barack Obama on social media Since that's what all the sources are focusing on, how he uses social media. Communication of Barack Obama can be a parent article, as it would encompass more than just social media, far more for the President, but the social media area should still have it's own article. Silver  seren C 21:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - It actually makes no sense keeping an article like this on Wikipedia, since it is too specific and narrow. A lot like Barack Obama on social media or Public Relations of Barack Obama would make a lot more sense for it. 117.194.96.56 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The subject of the article is too narrow right now. I think an article is needed to cover the President's P.R. in general. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Any PERSON on PLATFORM is going to be a non-encyclopedic focus/indiscriminate list. PERSON use of PLATFORM will allow the encyclopedic analysis of how the platform has been used/abused/misused/impact on and by the real world, as discussed by analyists in third party sources, so I support a broadening in that sense to something like Obama's use of social media. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few good sources that I have found and attempted to incorporate into the article. What Businesses Can Learn from Barack Obama's Social Media Strategy,, [Barack Obama, Mitt Romney Facebook Fans More Interested In Personal Stories Than Politics, Study Finds], , How Barack Obama Is Using Web 2.0 to Run for President, Barack Obama and the Facebook ElectionLuciferWildCat (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Barack Obama

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

A Twitter account is giving undue weight for a whole article and as this Twitter business is not even mentioned at all in the Barack Obama article it should be summarized and merged.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Favor, per above.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Opposed in the strongest possible terms. Barack Obama is a summary style article that relies heavily on many, many daughter articles and sub articles. Some of these articles are linked in the body of the text, while others only in template-based links (like this one). Either this article passes WP:GNG (which I believe it does) and this article is kept, or it fails and this article is deleted or merged with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 (since it seems to be mostly campaign-related tweets). It cannot be merged with the main BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A few sentences can be merged into it in summary style.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is not one sentence from this article that belongs in that article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Actually, frankly, Snowppose if that means anything here, the propose anything and everything pattern is getting more than tiresome and less and less effective), for reasons I've had to mention in other proposals, which are essentially what Scjessey said here. This just doesn't go all the way to the biographical article, the content isn't primarily biographical to begin with. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There no way to properly summarize it, yet still represent it to the appropriate extent that it deserves from the several books written entirely on the subject. A summary section then linking to the main article here is fine however. Should be done anyways. Silver  seren C 04:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment which "books" have been written entirely on @BarackObama?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Please drop the stick and move on. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The AFD had a majority of people say keep, not merge. It has proven itself notable.  When someone who wanted it deleted, now tries to eliminate the article by "merging" it, I find it hard to assume good faith.  Seems like gaming the system to me.   D r e a m Focus  21:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The trivia could be eliminated and the content improved via summarizing the little encyclopedic content.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I close this? At, there is consensus to wait until DRV is done, so broadening the article will be made. --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


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

Controversies and mishaps
I'll put this over here for the time being, if anyone wants to discuss putting it back in in some revised fasshion. Sorry if I made a mess of it. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversies and mishaps thumb|[[Kanye West stole the microphone from Taylor Swift during the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, causing a controversy that led to President Obama calling West a "Jackass" off the record.|alt=Kanye West on stage with Taylor Swift and some onlookers]] On January 5, 2009, Obama's campaign account @BarackObama was among several celebrity accounts that were hacked and domain hijacked. The hacker phished the password of a Twitter administrator's account, gaining access to other accounts to which he then changed the passwords, and subsequently offered access to accounts upon request at Digital Gangster. The case eventually led to a non-financial settlement with the Federal Trade Commission by Twitter.

In June 2011, Time ranked ABC News' tweet of an off the record comment by Obama during a September 2009 CNBC interview regarding Kanye West's interruption of Taylor Swift during the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards that month as one of the top ten Twitter controversies of the company's first five years. Obama described West as a "Jackass" while receiving makeup prior to the official interview. Since ABC and CNBC share a fiber optic line as a cost-saving measure, ABC had access to the feed. Although the September 2009 comments were made off the record, Obama affirmed them in April 2012, saying that he is a "Jackass", but a very talented one.

On July 4, 2011, Obama was the subject of a death hoax on Twitter when FOX News's Politics Twitter account (@foxnewspolitics) was hacked. However, the hackers were unfamiliar with Twitter and started their hoax messages with @BarackObama, thus only making the message appear in the Twitter timelines of those who follow both Fox News and the Presidential account. Eventually the hackers switched to hashtag references, increasing the visibility of their activities. FOX News acknowledged the breach and apologized.


 * Was there any consensus to remove all of this content. Where was this discussed. I am reverting this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It came up during the AfD, and I have to agree in this case, as these are, at the moment, only things which happen to involve both Obama and Twitter, and don't really have any connection to the rest of the article. For example, Obama didn't even call Kanye a jackass on Twitter, ABC overheard him saying it and then tweeted it. The twitter aspect of the situation is completely superfluous, especially as far as Obama is concerned. Maybe for ABC on Twitter, if that was actually how the story broke, and not just one of many way they disseminated the information. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, well, you're basically the only other person to discuss this with, and you're busy templating things. I'll give this another go with a less drastic cut. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This section needs to be deleted, it is ridiculous and NOT and also completely unrelated to Obama. It's about Taylor Swift and MTV.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * per all the above, these have ZERO to do with the subject of the article. The non-relevant content removed and the section renamed to reflect the remaining content. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And it is back. My appetite for conflict is sated to the point I don't feel like reverting, but it really does only drag the article down. If Tony is so incapable of 'making any sense' of the closes on other articles, he'd do well to listen here. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the trimming of this information. AIR corn (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bold move
I've boldly moved the article to the new title per consensus. After reading the discussion directly above, it appeared to be a question of the chicken or the egg. Is the article renamed first to expand the topic and then written, or is the topic written first under an article title that doesn't cover it? I hope this is helpful to get things rolling toward expanding this.--v/r - TP 20:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, on the issue of the above GA discussion: I believe this disqualifies the article under Criteria #3 of GA because the article no long is broad in it's topic. I think the article is going to have to lose it's GA status at some point to accommodate the change in topic and that it is inevitable.  I think it can easily be brought to GA again though.  I don't consider myself involved (or involved before this move anyway) in any of these discussions.--v/r - TP 20:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was this article's good article reviewer. But, that was "Barack Obama on Twitter", if it is going to be named "Barack Obama on social media", the article does not pass criteria 3a main aspects. The article may be rewritten (as has been mentioned already), but, in that case another review will be needed. Also I do not support that consensus! Regards! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  01:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why people want to change the name of the article without adding sufficient substance to the article to do so. If the article is broadly covering Obama on social media, then content should be added. It seems that people want to fight to change the name but not the content, which is pretty superficial. Why would you fight to change the name of the article (and maybe its lead) and not care about the substance of the article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I second Tony. Until sufficient and relevant content is added, the current article title is misleading since the whole article covers only "Barack Obama on Twitter" whatever the article title is. -- Tito Dutta  ✉  05:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I third Tony. The article talks exclusively about Twitter, so the new title is not accurate. Statυs ( talk ) 05:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how it is done there is always going to be a period where the title does not match the content. It would be even more inaccurate if it was broadened under it's old name so moving it first seems like a reasonable option. It would be good if the proponents of the move worked to add in the new information soon though. As for GA status I would give it time to allow Tony or anyone else interested to get it up to standard under the new heading before delisting it due to broadness issues. AIR corn (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, that's actually a false dichotomy, We could easily have two separate and accurate articles for a period of time, then combine them. But at this point I'm ambivalent. Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would involve either a history merge or some other attribution statement, but I suppose that could work. I moved this back again and started the expansion before reading your response. I am relatively ambivalent about this myself and if that is the least drama filled way then go for it. AIR corn (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * History merges are not recommended for two articles who have parallel editing. Renaming the article is most appropriate and the opponents, especially Status who moved the article back, are ignoring the close of the above move discussion.  Either take it up with the closing administrator or acknowledge the consensus.--v/r - TP 11:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Status, please move the GA1 page too! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  06:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC) NA -- Tito Dutta   ✉  14:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Facebook use
I'm using Google Books to search for his Facebook use. What can I say about it? I mean, what must first I insert? --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I stated in the AfD and DRV, the following sources would be a good place to start:
 * Communicator-In-Chief: How Barack Obama Used New Media Technology to Win the White House
 * Yes We Did: An Inside Look at How Social Media Built the Obama Brand
 * Barack Obama, the New Face of American Politics
 * That should be enough to make general overviews, at least. Silver  seren C 08:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Must I create the section myself? I found this: one million follower mark on Obama's Facebook account. Also, he spent $643,000 out of $16 million budget of internet use for advertising on Facebook. The rest of the budget may have been for social media use (probably, since I cannot summarize what the book said). --George Ho (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are another and 62,000 members. --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

re-tooling for new title
nice job so far on the re-tooling to reflect the new broader scope of the article! -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Any other uses?
I don't know, but how can I add general overview about his Youtube use, podcast use, Blackberry use, and any other social media use? --George Ho (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Condensing info about Twitter use?
Statistics? At least there are some good information. However, I cannot tell which is necessary or not. But is the comparison of the Stephen Fry account relevant, necessary, or something? At least there are "Hacking" and "Significance" sections. Thank god the atrocious trivial Kanye West thing was removed. --George Ho (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That was all me, honestly it is just such a painfully boring read it takes me a while but it works out since even removing one superfluous tweet from the article has elicited warring before I think a slow editorial pace would most benefit the article. I believe there are simply too many statistics here, it's one thing if they are cited as attributing to his success or the passage of a law etc but if it's just a data mine we need to condense to truly noteworthy stats and I feel what looks like two whole medium sized multi paragraph sections need to be condensed into just one half the size or less.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I'm less than confident in allowing for editorial discretion 'trimming' something you probably still wish was deleted. T'would be less strife if you stuck to adding and improving other sections of the article, and leave the twitter things, which were there when the article passed the GAC, for the talk page to work out. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Darryl, what is so special about removed content? How is Kanye West situation worthy of inclusion, as well as history of statistics? --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, for example, how when I first made that removal, concerning Kanye, I brought it to the talk page in case others wanted to comment. TOny disagreed and put it back. Others commented, we tried different things; we never had to worry about edit warring. That's the model I want to encourage you, and particularly LWC, to use when removing content from the Twitter section. It makes it easier to have the discussion if someone disagrees with an edit. You certainly wouldn't suggest no one ever disagrees with with LWC, would you? Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Get off your soapbox. This section is about condensing twitter use. Do you have an opinion in favor or against or in neutrality to this?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your cuts are facially appropriate, but go too far, leaving ambiguous statements behind, you also seem to have left 'citation needed' tags in places where there was a citation that you removed. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The link in my recent edit comment is malformed; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_on_social_media&diff=505820009&oldid=505819710 is the diff you want. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Everyone in favors trimming/removing the Kanye content down. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony is Tony, okay? Look, merits of arguments are all that matters, and Tony's comments doesn't hold much as water as Lucifer's. --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was my idea, remember? The point is that the opportunity to make comments was given. Do you understand what I'm asking of you? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Reddit
Here is a new one for ya'all: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/politics/obama-on-reddit/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 --v/r - TP 15:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Obama's use of Reddit is a logical expansion of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)