| Revision as of 19:12, 30 March 2009 editContino (talk | contribs)59 edits →Need to define what is included in article← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:21, 30 March 2009 edit undoWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →Need to define what is included in article: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 625: | Line 625: | ||
| ::By having these criteria, you no longer support or oppose information you like or don't like. I think this is the best way to define criteria objectively rather than "if I see it and don't like the subject or information, I oppose it". This is also a way to get rid of "Is Obama really an American?" because that is of so little importance compared to Obama's date of birth and college information that it can be objectively disposed of by the importance criteria. ] (]) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | ::By having these criteria, you no longer support or oppose information you like or don't like. I think this is the best way to define criteria objectively rather than "if I see it and don't like the subject or information, I oppose it". This is also a way to get rid of "Is Obama really an American?" because that is of so little importance compared to Obama's date of birth and college information that it can be objectively disposed of by the importance criteria. ] (]) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::To my knowledge we've never had a successful concicse proposal anywhere in the encyclopedia for deciding in advance what the exact criteria are for whether content should be included in an article. So I doubt it can be done here. Instead, the decision is made on a case-by-case basis via a mix of many content policies, guidelines, essays, and principles, plus sound editorial discretion. Things must be reliably sourced, neutral, not of undue weight, relevant and significant, and in the right place. They should educate the reader, be written at a level accessible to an interested lay reader, give a better encyclopedic understanding of the subject matter, avoid offering opinions and argumentation, be structured and in prose form where practical rather than a directory or collection of facts, avoid "in universe" descriptions, etc. I doubt any rule would dissuade truly partisan or biased editors, it would simply give them some new rule to construe the way they want. The best way to go about it, for all the rest, is not to think in terms of information being biased or not (unless it is over the top), but rather whether it helps tell the story of Obama's life and career, which is what the article is about. ] (]) 19:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:21, 30 March 2009
Click to manually purge the article's cache
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 5 days  |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 | Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Community article probation
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 5 days |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84 |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Barack Obama. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Barack Obama at the Reference desk. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Redundant discussions
In case anyone is wondering if they have an original comment about one of the frequently-discussed issues for this article, here is a list of discussions at length which have taken place just in the past couple of months.
Race
- Talk:Barack Obama/race
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Barack Obama is half-white
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Ethnicity in first sentence
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Media coverage of ethnicity controversy and the intro
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Mulatto, the term is Mullato
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#He's Multi-Racial.
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 43#Obama and race
Religion
Citizenship
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Supreme Court Controversy
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Still no mention on the birth certificate?
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Donofrio v. Wells
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Unverified Birth Hospital Needs Revision and Reference
Full name
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Article Name
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Barack Hussein Obama JR, not II
Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion about Obama's birthplace, citizenship, race/ethnicity, etc. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want to read about where Obama was born and have concerns about it, read Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Citizenship facts, rumors and claims and in particular this source which is heavily utilized in the article.
- Where is the archive on Ayers? 68.5.11.175 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Should we select one from this list? ↜Just me, here, now … 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Any of those should do. I do wonder why the Ayers topic is not included in the "Discussions". Admins getting censor happy?Miker789 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did you miss the whole WND invasion? They spammed the page and we even got mentioned on Drudge and Fox News for having "whitewashed" the article. Soxwon (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Where did the discussion on Teleprompters go? I don't believe that was finalized.Miker789 (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama
This recent creation was tagged as an attack page for speedy deletion, and I just deleted it. I just wanted to make sure we're clear ... well-sourced, balanced information about anyone, including Barack Obama, is and always has been welcome in Misplaced Pages, but pages which exist only to disparage their subject will be deleted on sight, no matter who the subject is, per our policy on biographical material of living persons. As with any other deletion, anyone who disagrees is welcome to take the article to deletion review. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet there's a page for Criticisms of George W. Bush. If Wikipedians would not like to see this resource attacked as biased, then I suggest you STOP SHOWING OBVIOUS BIAS. SoheiFox (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
policies. Grsz 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- They were read, thoroughly. Assume good faith and allow an article to be brought up to snuff, instead of eliminating with hostility. Especially when it's an article type with precedence. One more time, if Wikipedians want to be seen as an unbiased source, then they need to BE one. Try assuming good faith instead of enforcing an obvious bias. SoheiFox (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the point trying to made here, is that there are policies that dictate what goes into the creation of an article. You acknowledge you've read them, but you don't seem to acknowledge their content or if you've met them. Accusing Misplaced Pages of bias isn't assuming good faith. A lack of criticism is not tantamount to bias. And inclusion of all criticism, however minor, isn't tantamount to balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Jedi Master (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Geez ppl, he's been President for 3 months, he hasn't even had a chance to screw up that bad yet...Soxwon (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your concerns have been noted, and rejected. Time to move on, and to cease being disruptive. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think SoheiFox is being disruptive. He is raising legitimate observations. Let's all try to play nice. Newguy34 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your concerns have been noted, and rejected. Time to move on, and to cease being disruptive. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Demanding a criticism page for Barack Obama is most certainly disruptive, especially when the reason given is that some other politician has one. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, come on, old friend ;). I think the fact that there is a Criticism of George W. Bush article assumes that these types of articles are acceptable. Now, we all know they are not, but that doesn't mean he is being disruptive for bringing it up. I suspect some of the same folks arguing against a Criticism of Barack Obama article will be arguing for keeping the existing Criticism of George W. Bush article. Newguy34 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Demanding a criticism page for Barack Obama is most certainly disruptive, especially when the reason given is that some other politician has one. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- When there are notable criticisms about one, and only fringe theory criticisms about another, why wouldn't we argue that? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec) - No. Criticism articles are stupid, regardless of how much of a complete douchebag the subject of an article is. Criticism should be carefully woven into regular prose at the appropriate place. In the case of Obama, for example, major criticisms should be in this BLP (although there currently aren't any), and minor criticisms should be in the relevant child articles. Bush has a criticism article because the people who created it are lazy, but that is not a matter for this group of articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec) There are already valid criticisms of the president's policies, and him. But, they belong woven into the articles. Newguy34 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any significant criticisms of the man or his presidency. Obviously there are a few minor criticisms, but nothing in the scale of Bush and Cheney thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- They already are "woven into the articles", such as Public image of Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, how about his "say one thing, do another" policy on ethics vis-a-vis lobbyists, or maybe the "I wish I could get a cabinet level secretary who actually paid taxes" matter, or "I can spend a trillion
billiondollars and have the market crash further until there's nothing left" view of economics, all of which are already woven into the article, as Tarc recognizes. Newguy34 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)- Funny, but is sounds more like you're rattling off topic headers of WorldNetDaily's front page, rather than criticisms of your own. Point being, fringe criticisms from unreliable sources do not make it into Misplaced Pages articles. Just because you read it on your favorite blog or internet forum, just because you read it on a lot of your favorite blogs and internet forums, that doesn't make it notable in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the funny part is your bias seems to make it impossible for you to crack the door open even a bit to other possibilities. I don't know if my observations are on WorldNetDaily's front page, as I don't read it. I do know that they are shared by many of us plain ole, not as smart as you, not as cultured as you, normal little people out here. Oh, and they happen to already be in this article, complete with cites to reliable sources. Oh, crap! How did that get past the "Protectors of the True Faith from the Cultural Agency" that thinks, "we're smarter than you because we don't adhere to fringe (aren't they all if they don't meet with your approval?) theories ?! Newguy34 (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Many" ? No, they aren't. That's the essential point that evades you. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, I was referring to the 43 percent of the voting public that don't think the president is doing a, umm, how do you say, very good job. And, those "fringy" little people cite the three criticisms I noted above (as well as others) as support for their opinion. Well, I mean, it's only 43 percent. What's a 100 million or so voters to the crowd that knows better than the "unwashed masses"? Newguy34 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Many" ? No, they aren't. That's the essential point that evades you. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the funny part is your bias seems to make it impossible for you to crack the door open even a bit to other possibilities. I don't know if my observations are on WorldNetDaily's front page, as I don't read it. I do know that they are shared by many of us plain ole, not as smart as you, not as cultured as you, normal little people out here. Oh, and they happen to already be in this article, complete with cites to reliable sources. Oh, crap! How did that get past the "Protectors of the True Faith from the Cultural Agency" that thinks, "we're smarter than you because we don't adhere to fringe (aren't they all if they don't meet with your approval?) theories ?! Newguy34 (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Funny, but is sounds more like you're rattling off topic headers of WorldNetDaily's front page, rather than criticisms of your own. Point being, fringe criticisms from unreliable sources do not make it into Misplaced Pages articles. Just because you read it on your favorite blog or internet forum, just because you read it on a lot of your favorite blogs and internet forums, that doesn't make it notable in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, how about his "say one thing, do another" policy on ethics vis-a-vis lobbyists, or maybe the "I wish I could get a cabinet level secretary who actually paid taxes" matter, or "I can spend a trillion
- They already are "woven into the articles", such as Public image of Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any significant criticisms of the man or his presidency. Obviously there are a few minor criticisms, but nothing in the scale of Bush and Cheney thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec) There are already valid criticisms of the president's policies, and him. But, they belong woven into the articles. Newguy34 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think, if you have a valid point, then it could easily be made without resorting to sarcasm. You could start by letting us know where this number is that states 43% of Americans don't think he's doing a good job. What source are you getting it from? And if the criticisms you site are already in the article, I'm at a loss to know what you're asking for. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- That figure that Newguy34 mentions may have come from the 16 March 2009 Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll which indicated approval ratings of 56% somewhat approve or higher, 43% somewhat disapprove or lower. These same poll results show a strongly approve rating of 36% (down a bit since he took office) and a strongly disapprove rating of 32% (nearly tripled since he took office). And the target demographic for the poll was 41%-D/33%-R/26%-I, so it's not just counting knuckledraggers. Opelio (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I imagine there will be a place for an article such as Criticism of Barack Obama. I don't like the title myself, preferring the plural form of "criticisms", but it's equivalent to what editors settled on for a title in the case of Criticism of George W. Bush, using "criticism" essentially as an abstract, collective, mass noun. The Bush article has been nominated for deletion for a second time. If it does not survive the AfD the question about whether there should be an article on Criticism of Barack Obama ought become moot, IMO. But the probability appears reasonably high that Criticism of George W. Bush will survive its second AfD just as it did the first. Obama certainly is not beyond criticism from either the political left or the political right. Such an article will of course need to be consistent with WP:NPOV and other content policies rather than just an attack page. If there's enough material at this point in his presidency to start one, then someone should start it and let the arguments begin about what's fair game to include in such an article, as happened with the Bush equivalent. I imagine it will go through WP:Articles for deletion just as the Bush article did. But if it's started off with an NPOV tone and with reliable sources in support it seems to me it'll have a good chance at surviving. That said, I have no complaint about Dank55's deletion of the attack page that was started as a POV fork from this article. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is madness. It makes no sense whatsoever to have articles about anyone or anything that contain only criticism. It is impossible for such an article to be neutral. Any Misplaced Pages article that has "criticism" in the title should be deleted. Frankly, the same should really apply to section headings. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe so. But see, e.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_17#Criticism_of_George_W._Bush, and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_George_W._Bush. The entire history of nominations for deletion of that article can be seen at Talk:Criticism_of_George_W._Bush, near the top of the page. Plainly the consensus is to keep such an article. Presently there's a discussion at that page whether to merge it into Public perception of George W. Bush. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is utterly irrelevant. As has been said many times before, stuff that goes on at other articles has no bearing on what happens here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, what goes on in other articles very much has bearing on what goes on in others. That's how you keep NPOV, which really seems to be an alien concept on Misplaced Pages when it involves political figures. Do you get it? A criticism article on one public figure throws open the validity of other public figures having similar articles. To act otherwise is to utterly fail NPOV. Disruptive is a horrible way to attempt to dismiss a call for proper NPOV. They are either allowed article types or they are not. To fail to assume good faith and delete a criticism article out of hand fails two of the major things Misplaced Pages is supposed to adhere to. This is not mob rule; not if you want to be taken seriously. If you feel the need to defend one President from having such an article but are entirely for another President having the same type of article, then you have too much bias. It is time for you to move on and edit something else; you are not mature enough to maintain NPOV if you hold such a mindset. SoheiFox (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is utterly irrelevant. As has been said many times before, stuff that goes on at other articles has no bearing on what happens here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose time will tell, though it's hardly irrelevant. The trend in WP, very much against my own preferences, has been to allow and retain articles devoted solely to criticisms in a wide variety of topic areas. The article on objections to evolution immediately comes to mind as another example among numerous similar approaches across the wiki including the present form of the Bush criticism article. I don't agree with this trend, but it has unquestionably occurred in the past several years and Wikipedians who disagree with this trend have been unable to prevent the increasing number of such articles that have a strong local consensus to continue to exist. Most importantly, wherever such a page exists, it is a widely agreed that it must not be an attack page. Rather, where such a page exists it must be a neutral presentation of criticisms based wholly upon reliable sources On the other hand, editors at this article can indeed arrive at a different local consensus than have editors in other topic areas, that is, to interpret WP:NPOV more narrowly in terms of choosing topic titles than has been the case elsewhere. In this case, even despite that criticisms of Obama exist from both the political left and right, I personally maintain that such an article would constitute a POV fork. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- While balance is obviously the operative, it should be expected that things like GWB and evolution get their own "criticism" articles. These come about when the criticism become a notable topic in their own right. Dozens of books have been published with the sole topic of criticising both GWB and evolution. They are a matter of interest to both those who sympathise with the criticism and those who don't because the criticism is exceptionally vocal (i.e. it goes beyond assorted disagreements that most things attract). The same can't be said for most (though not all) of the criticism directed at Obama. For the moment, it remains stuff which is dismissed to different degrees by his supporters, the mainstream media and the public as typical responses from those who oppose him on political or ideological grounds. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Or why not just look him up on Conservapedia? Gave me a good laugh. Euaaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.137.81 (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- While balance is obviously the operative, it should be expected that things like GWB and evolution get their own "criticism" articles. These come about when the criticism become a notable topic in their own right. Dozens of books have been published with the sole topic of criticising both GWB and evolution. They are a matter of interest to both those who sympathise with the criticism and those who don't because the criticism is exceptionally vocal (i.e. it goes beyond assorted disagreements that most things attract). The same can't be said for most (though not all) of the criticism directed at Obama. For the moment, it remains stuff which is dismissed to different degrees by his supporters, the mainstream media and the public as typical responses from those who oppose him on political or ideological grounds. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose time will tell, though it's hardly irrelevant. The trend in WP, very much against my own preferences, has been to allow and retain articles devoted solely to criticisms in a wide variety of topic areas. The article on objections to evolution immediately comes to mind as another example among numerous similar approaches across the wiki including the present form of the Bush criticism article. I don't agree with this trend, but it has unquestionably occurred in the past several years and Wikipedians who disagree with this trend have been unable to prevent the increasing number of such articles that have a strong local consensus to continue to exist. Most importantly, wherever such a page exists, it is a widely agreed that it must not be an attack page. Rather, where such a page exists it must be a neutral presentation of criticisms based wholly upon reliable sources On the other hand, editors at this article can indeed arrive at a different local consensus than have editors in other topic areas, that is, to interpret WP:NPOV more narrowly in terms of choosing topic titles than has been the case elsewhere. In this case, even despite that criticisms of Obama exist from both the political left and right, I personally maintain that such an article would constitute a POV fork. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Teleprompter
Where is the section that he can't talk without a teleprompter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.215.230 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC) I'm Ron Burgundy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.47.15.10 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's nowhere, because we have yet to see a reliable source making any such assertion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Correct. Right-wing radio is having a fun time with this subject, but it is mainly a joke and has no place in this article.Jarhed (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
And again you perpetuate this believe that Misplaced Pages is controlled by Liberals.(which will eventually be it's downfall) Search google news, you will find articles about this. 72.10.215.230 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTNEWS, you will see why it doesn't matter either way. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've certainly seen that contradicted in other articles. 72.230.38.207 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Though he may use a teleprompter quite a bit, it is really not relevant in regards to his overall life. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- His overall life, no not really. But his "Great Orator" skills are looking more and more, "not so great". AP just released another story about him not doing well because of his reliance on a teleprompter. Did Martin Luther King use one? Nope. A great orator is someone who memorizes his speech and then can give it and vary it and jump around in it because they know it in their heart, and eat, sleep and breathe it. They are comfortable in front of anyone and can talk off of the top of their head on that subject.
- He appears to be reading a script and if the script stops, he has no idea what to do. I'll come back with plenty of factual and approved sources. Miker789 (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Please provide some reliable sources for us to potentially use and state exactly what the fact is and how is it notable. JustGettingItRight (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, here are three sources. Did not need all three since this story is not an opinion piece, it is just a report of the factual event that happened on March 17.
- Miker789 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- These sources do not explain how this amounts to anything more than slightly amusing trivia, and they do not indicate why it would belong in an encyclopedic biography written in summary style. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Latte. It's one incident, and not notable in the grand scheme of things for a President. If it becomes an ongoing problem with Obama (and a defining characteristic of his Presidency), it belongs in the article. Otherwise, no. Dayewalker (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- These sources do not explain how this amounts to anything more than slightly amusing trivia, and they do not indicate why it would belong in an encyclopedic biography written in summary style. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- It shows that we have a president that may not be able to string together a coherent thought unless he is scripted. Here are more sources.
- I am just reporting the factual info of his past problems with speeches. When you watch the actual speeches where the telepromter goes out or he tries to speak without one, many have reported that his speeches were lackluster. This is in direct contrast to being a great orator. I am being neutral and just referencing what reporters have said. I thought that was what Wiki was supposed to do, just compile the facts. Miker789 (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia is much more than just a compilation of facts. Maybe, if this becomes something, add it to one of the sub articles, but not the main bio. Tom 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. This is a funny issue for pundits right now, but there is no consensus that it is a substantive issue. Perhaps the issue will develop. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia is much more than just a compilation of facts. Maybe, if this becomes something, add it to one of the sub articles, but not the main bio. Tom 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Even if this is notable, and I believe it is based upon the mainstream news coverage on this, it may not warrant inclusion in this article because of WP:WEIGHT. Ordinarily, for your smaller articles, you might include such information. However, this article serves almost as a summary, with several sub-articles branching off. Thus, I don't think this material belongs here, lest this becomes a bigger story going forward, but I would say it might be worthy to put in a relevant subarticle (say speaking skills of Obama or something like that). JustGettingItRight (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is also a much more efficient way to work on a big topic than this. Rather than argue here and spend pages stumbling over rhetoric and policy principles, address it in the articles with narrower scope, make sure they are balanced and give appropriate weight, and then read through them and compare how a summary style section should look with what we've got. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"Mr Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the "teleprompt president" over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech." Source: "Obama In St Patrick's Day Teleprompt Blunder," SkyNews, 18 March 2009.
I added an item, with two citations, about emerging criticisms that his reliance on a teleprompter is perhaps excessive, compared to previous presidents or other public figures. It makes sense that a section including praise he receives for his oratorical skills would also mention criticism, or at least a caveat concerning a possible source of that skill. --SHarold (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why was this deleted? In a section that describes his "cultural image" and includes the opinion that he is one of the greatest orators of our time, citing one opinion article, it makes sense to include the opposing viewpoint. I don't think you can say this is a topic without "weight" when you include one opinion but not another. Unless a good reason is given for deleting this, it ought to be put back in and I will re-insert it, after discussion (unless there is none). --SHarold (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see your point. I have not read what you added that was removed, so I can't say anything about that, but I do agree generally with the need to be encyclopedic and not a mere echo. On another topic, here is a joke, but it may link to reliable sources: http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/ --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is this an example of what happens without a teleprompter?: "President Obama Jokes About Being a Bad Bowler: 'It's Like the Special Olympics'". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see your point. I have not read what you added that was removed, so I can't say anything about that, but I do agree generally with the need to be encyclopedic and not a mere echo. On another topic, here is a joke, but it may link to reliable sources: http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/ --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Guys, Misplaced Pages talk pages are not a forum for dissing the article subjects, or for posting links to snarky partisan blogs and infotainment sites. Many of those pages have their own comments sections where puerile Kool-aid drinkers on both sides can get their jollies pounding each other. We try to responsibly craft appropriately balanced encyclopedia articles here. "It may link to reliable sources"?! That's neither legitimate nor compelling, it's promoting this talk page as a gathering of gossipy fault-mongers. Abrazame (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well said! But I did not have a bad motivation. Instead I thought it might be a useful gateway for finding a useful article, particularly given the newness of the issue. Hey, I guess I could have been wrong, but if it pays off with a valuable source, then it was worth it. Not every effort I make to improve Misplaced Pages articles will be perfect, but at least I'm making efforts. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I still haven't read a good reason why a sentence extolling Obama's skill as an orator should not be followed by a sentence critiquing his oratory. It's not a question of WP:WEIGHT, since I only added one sentence to balance another sentence. Again, the issue is not use of a teleprompter per se as much as it is a changing perception of his cultural image, and the re-evaluation of the opinion that he is an astounding orator. --SHarold (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- You may not like the reasons, but they are stated. The whole issue of "balance" is inherently POV. The article is written in summary style, not point counterpoint style. It is not necessary to follow every issue that may be perceived as positive, with the counter-position by those who disagree. The weight issue goes to the prevalence of sources where, for now at least, there is a lot of material about Obama's speaking in general, and only a small flurry of recent articles about use of teleprompters. Further, you hit the nail on the head when you mention cultural image. There is an article entirely devoted to that, where the material can receive much more full treatment. Incidentally, as I have said elsewhere I think that the material praising Obama's oratorial skills and comparing him to various other speakers also received undue weight and should be trimmed back.Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Wikidemon and have cut the offending paragraph. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
New article on teleprompter usage
I stumbled across this little gem a few moments ago, and I thought perhaps regular editors might like to take a look at it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- All I can do is facepalm. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I hope this does not become a trend... we're going to have to deal with one of these every week, when humorists, slow news day reporters, and anti-Obama folks come up with some new piece of trivia to cover that week? I'm just waiting for the article on Obama's smoking habit, and Obama's annual physical. Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Now taking wagers on Obama-Leno Special Olympics controversy. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the president could help fend off these types of things that follow celebrity if he'd slow up on the night show apperances, televised March Madness bracket picks, etc. Newguy34 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did you actually watch Leno? He gave an interesting, articulate and unscripted explanation of the financial crisis with respect to AIG and beyond. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I did, but what's your point? Interesting? That's a matter of opinion. Articulate? Sure, I guess. Unscripted? We will never know. Certainly it appears he didn't use a teleprompter for his appearance, but the president of the United States doesn't sneeze without a script. I'm watching his remarks right now, and there's the "ping-pong" reading from the teleprompter, yet again. Newguy34 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Did you actually watch Leno? He gave an interesting, articulate and unscripted explanation of the financial crisis with respect to AIG and beyond. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's arguably as notable as Jon Stewart's 2009 controversy with CNBC. Soooo... ;-) --Ali'i 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- You mean "arguably as pointless for an encyclopedia subject", right? I suppose we're going to get a new encyclopedia article now every time someone has a rough talk show interview. Wikidemon (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the president could help fend off these types of things that follow celebrity if he'd slow up on the night show apperances, televised March Madness bracket picks, etc. Newguy34 (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Now taking wagers on Obama-Leno Special Olympics controversy. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I hope this does not become a trend... we're going to have to deal with one of these every week, when humorists, slow news day reporters, and anti-Obama folks come up with some new piece of trivia to cover that week? I'm just waiting for the article on Obama's smoking habit, and Obama's annual physical. Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) To be fair to the Jon Stewart story, it did receive a lot of attention over a continuous span of time. That's about the only good thing I can say about it, because after the event the entire thing fell off the radar and no serious consequences seemed to follow. Also, Cramer v. Stewart can be written into the relevant articles, "TOTUS!" cannot. 75.66.180.72 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- So accolades for Obama's speaking is very notable and must be included, but the substantial coverage of misstatements, controversial statements, and teleprompter use should be excluded? Interesting. I hadn't realized the New York Times was a right-wing propaganda enterprise. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- As to the first part, yes. Obama's oratorial style is a significant biographical matter, and fairly important to who he is and how he functions in his career. To the extent the article digresses and it becomes a collection of accolades or disparagement, that drifts off point and should be trimmed and posed in a more encyclopedic style. An article about a person says who he is and what he does - it is not a point / counterpoint collection of praises and criticisms. As to the second part, again yes, the teleprompter usage matter is not covered to a sufficient degree, nor is it relevant enough in my opinion and the majority of others so far commenting, to be worth including in this article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't commented on this latest thing, so let me add my voice that his oratorical style is notable and and an important facet of who he is, and therefore must be included in any biography. The teleprompter use is ridiculously unimportant, however, as are his poor bowling skills and every word he utters. <mantra> This is a biography of a person's whole life and career. </mantra> Tvoz/talk 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- An alternative to Obama-Leno Special Olympics controversy would be List of Democratic party jokes about the Special Olympics ("even if you win, you're still retarded"). Andjam (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The matter was just referred to by the BBC in a national news radio bulletin. The story seems to have legs and yet there is no mention of it here or at Public image of Barack Obama. This is not NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is also not news (which would hold true even if it weren't a slow enough news day at the BBC to have a news bulletin about trivia). Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Bold change to lead
Current introduction: 1. Who he is (President) and what he used to be. 2. Education and Illinois Senate 3. Keynote address and Senate committees 4. Close primary campaign with Hillary Clinton, African-American, McCain.
3b (Senate committees) is the most out of place for an introduction. It is not a key point. Other senator articles don't deem committee assignments as a key point for the introduction. A more important point was that Obama ran as an anti-war candidate and was one of the early politicians to do so. Spevw (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Corrected, nothing controversial added. Very plain language used. Spevw (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
An editor has shortened and refined the lead. I like the change, with the exception of using the word "virtual" to mean "almost". I know there was a deliberate effort to describe Obama's senate career in the lead, but I find the actual list of committees and legislation to be very dry and not terribly informative to someone who is reading the lead for summary purposes. So, preemptively, I like it! Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
See, I'm no dummy, my ideas are good. I also am changing it to almost like you suggested. Spevw (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that calling this a "consensus" edit in edit summary is a stretch - one editor agreed with it, and others might not. I'm not saying necessarily that the edits were bad, but I am saying that major changes to the lead section of an FA on article probation, which has seen much contention, should be done with great care. Waiting for actual consensus to form when the changes are substantive, as these are, would be prudent. Tvoz/talk 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I went over the revised lede and made some changes to it:
- Reinstated "close" for the primaries as "prolonged" has a POV tinge to it (def: "tediously protracted"), whereas "close" is just descriptive.
- Rearranged the paragraph about his Senate run because as it had been amended, the chronology was off - the keynote came before the election and saying he was elected and following that with he was relatively unknown is misleading: he was relatively unknown nationally until giving the keynote in July, and then he was elected in November. Also it had said twice that he was elected, so this modification corrects that.
- I removed the addition of his campaign themes for now - the lede is supposed to summarize the article, and this sentence didn;t seem to summarize what is covered in the article, however accurate the description might be. Also I think this one is too major a change to just slip in.
- I agree with the removal of the second swearing-in - it is a trivial point, not suitable for the lede.
- I agree with the removal of the Senate committees.
- My changes were an attempt to reconcile what we had with what was being changed, and think that further major changes to the lede should be discussed, as I said above. Tvoz/talk 08:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Tvoz said "I just want to point out that calling this a "consensus" edit in edit summary is a stretch - one editor agreed with it, and others might not. Yet Tvoz changed things without even one editor agreeing to it so there was no consensus. This is not really a technicality because the Barack Obama article has strict rules, article probation, etc. But I think this issue is settled since there is no debate in over a week. Spevw (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Unexpected
Thanks to the editor for providing a reference, but it confirms that the word "unexpected" is misleading. The Republican challenger imploded with a scandal. The only thing the article says is that he wasn't expected to win going into the race and that the size of his margins weren't expected, but it's not really accurate to say his victory was unexpected without clarifying what is meant by this. No one was shocked when he won. It wasn't a big surprise. It was expected. It maybe wasn't anticipated at the start of the race and he may have been an underdog, but to stick in unexpected in the "lead" (introduction) of this article as if that's very notable is misleading. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- CoM, please read it again - the "unexpected" is referring to the Democratic primary landslide win in March which was unexpected, not the November election against the imploded Republicans which was not. Tvoz/talk 07:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- A Senate primary win does not a star make, however unexpected it may have struck the small fraction of people in his state that follow Senate primaries. For that matter, actually getting elected to the U.S. Senate does not make someone a "star". It makes them a Senator. Obama became a star due to his address to the Democratic convention which electrified not only the party in the hall but in the nationwide TV audience and got people talking about him across the country. I don't understand the reverts here. Can't we just get a reference? Abrazame (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. One bit taken out of context from an enthusiastic New York Times story doesn't belong in the introduction of this article. The significane of the "unexpectedness" of Obama's primary win in the Senate primary is at or approaching nil. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are now a couple of reliable sources referencing the surprise surrounding the landslide victory in the Dem primary and pointing to Obama as a rising star among Democrats at that time. Thus I don't think there's a problem per say with the lede or with the text on this later in the article, but there's also probably room for compromise. Certainly Obama's convention speech raised his stature and "star power" far more than his primary victory and it should be easy to find references that demonstrate this (as currently written, the intro places more emphasis on the primary win - "made him a rising star" - then on his convention speech - "further raising his visibility" - and to my mind at least the emphasis there is reversed from what it should be).
- Agreed. One bit taken out of context from an enthusiastic New York Times story doesn't belong in the introduction of this article. The significane of the "unexpectedness" of Obama's primary win in the Senate primary is at or approaching nil. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- A Senate primary win does not a star make, however unexpected it may have struck the small fraction of people in his state that follow Senate primaries. For that matter, actually getting elected to the U.S. Senate does not make someone a "star". It makes them a Senator. Obama became a star due to his address to the Democratic convention which electrified not only the party in the hall but in the nationwide TV audience and got people talking about him across the country. I don't understand the reverts here. Can't we just get a reference? Abrazame (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- If ChildofMidnight and others have problems with the current wording they should propose some alternatives here, though the sources cited seem to demonstrate that the notion that the significance of his primary win is "at or approaching nil" is not really accurate, so it's not necessarily inappropriate to mention this in some form in the lede (though I would say it's not incredibly crucial either).
- I would think it should be easy to come up with a solution agreeable to all on the talk page, and that's what should happen now rather than continued edit warring. In the grand scheme this is a very small issue so let's try to be flexible in coming up with a wording that most can agree on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I read this section first and expected to agree with ChildofMidnight and Abrazame, but then I went to go check the sources, which support the text fully. I'm not at all clear on how it is "taken out of context" from the NYT article, considering that is the context of the article. It also explains how a not-yet-elected Senate candidate was selected to give the keynote speech at the nominating convention, which is a fact that seems rather odd without the proper context. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Bbatsell - that is exactly right. I'm not inclined to compromise on this one, as it is so clearly the point of the source, and true to boot. Tvoz/talk 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- If in fact the "unexpectedness" of his victory in a Senate primary race was the reason he was selected as the keynote speaker (according to good sources), that would be interesting to note and explain in the body of the article. In the lead (introduction), the reader has no idea what this unexpectedness is all about. It makes it seem like people woke up after the election WOWING at the outcome... of the Senate primary in Illinois? This is minor. And I agree with the comments in the section below that Obama's major policy positions and decisions are for more notable. I preferred the old version of the introduction, for what it's worth, and thought it would have been better to update it with major presidential decisions (a couple mentions like the spending bill, appointments, war in Iraq, and Afghanistan decisions) instead of taking out all the details on his Senate career (which probably could have been summarized) and adding this bit about how important the unexpectedness of his Senate primary victory was. Just to be clear, a big part of the problem is saying something is unexpected isn't enough to clarify what that means. Why was it unexpected? What part of it was unexpected? There's none of that context. My suggested edit is simple, take out the word unexpected. If someone wants to move it and explain it elsewhere, that's up to them.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the point is obviously that the "unexpected" aspect was the "landslide" nature of the victory. As currently worded I suppose it's a bit ambiguous but not a huge problem. I think I tend to agree with C of M on this one point though, i.e. is the word "unexpected" all that necessary, at least in the lede? I think what's really important here is the "landslide victory" itself. Even had a landslide been completely anticipated - and Obama was hardly a total underdog by the final weeks of the campaign, see here ("Obama, meanwhile, has shot up as high as 20 percentage points ahead of Hynes and Hull, according to the latest polls," March 11th) and here ("Though Obama...lagged in polls as late as mid-February, he surged to the front of the pack in recent weeks") - it presumably would still have catapulted him to the front ranks of up-and-coming Democrats. If removing "unexpected" from the sentence ends the argument I think I'm okay with that, though I'm open to being persuaded that the word (or something similar) is particularly important. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, we should remove "unexpected". It's one of those words that newspapers sometimes use but we should not, a word to avoid like "ironic(ally)", "coincidentally", "sadly", "surprisingly", etc. It inserts a narrative voice that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, some kind of all knowing person who makes a judgment on what is and what is not to be expected. Wikidemon (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the point is obviously that the "unexpected" aspect was the "landslide" nature of the victory. As currently worded I suppose it's a bit ambiguous but not a huge problem. I think I tend to agree with C of M on this one point though, i.e. is the word "unexpected" all that necessary, at least in the lede? I think what's really important here is the "landslide victory" itself. Even had a landslide been completely anticipated - and Obama was hardly a total underdog by the final weeks of the campaign, see here ("Obama, meanwhile, has shot up as high as 20 percentage points ahead of Hynes and Hull, according to the latest polls," March 11th) and here ("Though Obama...lagged in polls as late as mid-February, he surged to the front of the pack in recent weeks") - it presumably would still have catapulted him to the front ranks of up-and-coming Democrats. If removing "unexpected" from the sentence ends the argument I think I'm okay with that, though I'm open to being persuaded that the word (or something similar) is particularly important. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- If in fact the "unexpectedness" of his victory in a Senate primary race was the reason he was selected as the keynote speaker (according to good sources), that would be interesting to note and explain in the body of the article. In the lead (introduction), the reader has no idea what this unexpectedness is all about. It makes it seem like people woke up after the election WOWING at the outcome... of the Senate primary in Illinois? This is minor. And I agree with the comments in the section below that Obama's major policy positions and decisions are for more notable. I preferred the old version of the introduction, for what it's worth, and thought it would have been better to update it with major presidential decisions (a couple mentions like the spending bill, appointments, war in Iraq, and Afghanistan decisions) instead of taking out all the details on his Senate career (which probably could have been summarized) and adding this bit about how important the unexpectedness of his Senate primary victory was. Just to be clear, a big part of the problem is saying something is unexpected isn't enough to clarify what that means. Why was it unexpected? What part of it was unexpected? There's none of that context. My suggested edit is simple, take out the word unexpected. If someone wants to move it and explain it elsewhere, that's up to them.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Bbatsell - that is exactly right. I'm not inclined to compromise on this one, as it is so clearly the point of the source, and true to boot. Tvoz/talk 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I read this section first and expected to agree with ChildofMidnight and Abrazame, but then I went to go check the sources, which support the text fully. I'm not at all clear on how it is "taken out of context" from the NYT article, considering that is the context of the article. It also explains how a not-yet-elected Senate candidate was selected to give the keynote speech at the nominating convention, which is a fact that seems rather odd without the proper context. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
←I'm afraid I disagree. The sources directly support that his win and its landmark size were unexpected - we're not making the judgment, the sources are. Why are we bending over backward to not say something that is the characterization of the sources? Examples:
- But Mr. Obama, a state senator from Chicago, awoke Wednesday to a deluge of national attention, a result of his overwhelming victory the night before by margins unforeseen by any polls or guesses. (NYT ref)
- Obama, 42, whose initial campaign strategy was to build a coalition of blacks and liberal whites, instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party. (Trib ref)
- Three weeks ago, state Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be an also-ran among the eight Democrats running in Illinois for the nomination to an open U.S. Senate seat. (USA Today ref)
I think it is a fair word to use, and since the unexpected Senate primary win was arguably an extremely significant step in his rise, as it certainly led to the national exposure and the speculation about his future etc - it belongs in the lead. I don't necessarily object to expanding the lead if we get consensus about that, but we don't need to cut an accurate descriptive word to do that. I don't think it's the most important word in the article, but I think, as I said, it is accurate, well-supported, summarizes the article properly, and I see no reason to take it out. Tvoz/talk 07:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The two sources I linked to in my comment above somewhat contradict the NYT story. One (a Chicago paper, no doubt more in touch with the campaign) specifically references polls putting Obama ahead by as much as 20 points prior to the election. The other mentioned that Obama had surged to the front toward the end of the campaign. Three weeks prior to the election he may have seemed like an also-ran, but three days before he probably was the favorite. Thus the "unexpected" label may be applicable if we take the long view ("one month ago no one thought he would win, much less in a landslide") but not so much if viewed in light of the final days of the campaign ("Obama had surged to a huge lead in the final stages"). We could say that the victory was unexpected because he was not the early favorite, or that it was expected because he was leading the polls in the end, and I don't think one view is more correct than the other. So overall I think the situation is a bit more ambiguous than you're suggesting, and I'm wondering what you think of the two sources that are clearly characterizing Obama as the frontrunner in the home stretch.
- But again, is the "unexpected" nature of the victory really what matters in terms of Obama's star status, or is it rather the fact that he won and won big time? I think the latter, which means removing "unexpected" doesn't really do any harm to the key idea. And Tvoz I guess I would somewhat reverse your question: why is it so critical to refer to the primary win as "unexpected" when the sourcing for that seems to be ambiguous at best, and when the "unexpectedness" of the victory was almost certainly far less important than the victory itself/the fact that it was a landslide? I just don't think we lose anything by removing the word and indeed I think the sentence has greater clarity without it.
- Finally I still think we should be placing greater emphasis on the convention speech rather than the primary win in terms of raising his star power, somewhat reversing the emphasis in the current sentence. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK - first I didn't say the word "unexpected" is critical, but I believe it is accurate and correctly reflects sources and the article itself. Yes, I am taking the long view of the primary victory - and its size - which multiple sources have identified with words that mean "unexpected", because it was in fact unexpected. Even if he had surged in the end, overall he had not been predicted to win and he certainly had not been predicted to win big, and across ethnic lines in the way he did - which one of your sources (LA Times) mentions: expected strong support for Hynes from Chicago's Democratic machine failed to materialize and instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party. (I can't access the entire Sun-Times article via the truncated Highbeam link, so I can't verify whether it says anything one way or the other about the victory.) Of course I think the speech should be emphasized, but it seems pretty clear that without that surprising landslide primary win he likely would not have been on the Kerry campaign's radar, and wouldn't have been selected to give the speech that (I believe) launched his national career. So yes, emphasize the speech, but the chronology is important, and the surprise nature of coming from essentially out of nowhere - no offense intended to the Illinois State Legislature - to win big across the board and thus be propelled to the national stage should be captured in the lead, in my opinion. If someone wants to peopose alternate wording, I'm of course interested in seeing it, as I said in the previous section. Tvoz/talk 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with respect to our thinking about this which is fine of course, and anyway I certainly don't want to make a big to do about this. Also ChildofMidnight has taken a stab at some new language that I think works better, namely that Obama "entered the 2004 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate as an underdog. He won the primary with broad support that surprised campaign watchers and raised his profile in the Democratic party." I think that's a good alternate version, though perhaps the sentence that follows could be concluded a bit more strongly than "further raised his profile" (with respect to his convention speech). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I had not seen the edit until you mentioned it - I was under the impression that we were still discussing this, so am surprised to see that new wording was posted before we finished talking about it, but in any case - it now says "raised his profile" twice in succession which is not good writing even with the "further", and I agree with you that the sentence about the speech is weak. So I'm not happy with the new wording, and think it should have been hammered out here first, seeing as it is in contention. Also - the writing of the intro is now significantly poorer - we can do better than starting so many sentences with "He". Tvoz/talk 05:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely the discussion should have continued here before the changes were made (@ ChildofMidnight, if that user is reading this, as they should be). And I did not look as closely at the precise wording as I should have, you're right about repetitiveness being a problem. We do need less "he" in that paragraph and one or two "Obama"s instead which is easy enough. And perhaps we can replace "that further raised his profile" with something like "that marked him as a rising star in the party" (I'm not even close to being married to that wording). I think it makes since to use the "star" appellation here in the clause on the convention speech, particularly since several sources in footnote 65 use that exact terminology. So changing that phrase (to my proposal or something more felicitously worded) and fixing the hes might take care of the repetitiveness problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your suggestions are definitely better than what's there now (particularly the "rising star") - honestly, I'm too tired to fine tune right now, but I for one would be happier with what you're suggesting than what's there now, so I'm ok with your editing it along those lines and I'll take another look tomorrow with both eyes open. But what's there now is really not ok for an FA. Thanks for sticking with the discussion. Tvoz/talk 06:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a proposed version right now? The discussion is a little hard to follow. I'll repeat my concern that trying to state as fact people's subjective expectations (it was a surprise, surprisingly, unexpectedly, nobody thought...) is unencyclopedic here even if some reliable news sources feel free to opine in that way. COM's version, "surprised campaign watchers" is more specific. Who did it suprise? Who was expecting or not expecting it? Presumably Obama himself and many of those who voted for him thought he might win... most people in America and the world were not surprised at all, and in fact they have never heard of it until this day. So it is important to qualify or explain the context of descriptions of the degree of unexpectedness. Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your suggestions are definitely better than what's there now (particularly the "rising star") - honestly, I'm too tired to fine tune right now, but I for one would be happier with what you're suggesting than what's there now, so I'm ok with your editing it along those lines and I'll take another look tomorrow with both eyes open. But what's there now is really not ok for an FA. Thanks for sticking with the discussion. Tvoz/talk 06:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely the discussion should have continued here before the changes were made (@ ChildofMidnight, if that user is reading this, as they should be). And I did not look as closely at the precise wording as I should have, you're right about repetitiveness being a problem. We do need less "he" in that paragraph and one or two "Obama"s instead which is easy enough. And perhaps we can replace "that further raised his profile" with something like "that marked him as a rising star in the party" (I'm not even close to being married to that wording). I think it makes since to use the "star" appellation here in the clause on the convention speech, particularly since several sources in footnote 65 use that exact terminology. So changing that phrase (to my proposal or something more felicitously worded) and fixing the hes might take care of the repetitiveness problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I had not seen the edit until you mentioned it - I was under the impression that we were still discussing this, so am surprised to see that new wording was posted before we finished talking about it, but in any case - it now says "raised his profile" twice in succession which is not good writing even with the "further", and I agree with you that the sentence about the speech is weak. So I'm not happy with the new wording, and think it should have been hammered out here first, seeing as it is in contention. Also - the writing of the intro is now significantly poorer - we can do better than starting so many sentences with "He". Tvoz/talk 05:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with respect to our thinking about this which is fine of course, and anyway I certainly don't want to make a big to do about this. Also ChildofMidnight has taken a stab at some new language that I think works better, namely that Obama "entered the 2004 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate as an underdog. He won the primary with broad support that surprised campaign watchers and raised his profile in the Democratic party." I think that's a good alternate version, though perhaps the sentence that follows could be concluded a bit more strongly than "further raised his profile" (with respect to his convention speech). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK - first I didn't say the word "unexpected" is critical, but I believe it is accurate and correctly reflects sources and the article itself. Yes, I am taking the long view of the primary victory - and its size - which multiple sources have identified with words that mean "unexpected", because it was in fact unexpected. Even if he had surged in the end, overall he had not been predicted to win and he certainly had not been predicted to win big, and across ethnic lines in the way he did - which one of your sources (LA Times) mentions: expected strong support for Hynes from Chicago's Democratic machine failed to materialize and instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party. (I can't access the entire Sun-Times article via the truncated Highbeam link, so I can't verify whether it says anything one way or the other about the victory.) Of course I think the speech should be emphasized, but it seems pretty clear that without that surprising landslide primary win he likely would not have been on the Kerry campaign's radar, and wouldn't have been selected to give the speech that (I believe) launched his national career. So yes, emphasize the speech, but the chronology is important, and the surprise nature of coming from essentially out of nowhere - no offense intended to the Illinois State Legislature - to win big across the board and thus be propelled to the national stage should be captured in the lead, in my opinion. If someone wants to peopose alternate wording, I'm of course interested in seeing it, as I said in the previous section. Tvoz/talk 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Introduction
I have taken a stab at reworking the introduction along the lines that several editors have been discussing above to reinstate wording that we had previously, tweaked to accommodate some later edits and to remove repetitive, poor writing and wording identified above as subjective and unencyclopedic. Please discuss further changes here before making them - the introduction to this featured article on article probation is not a good candidate for bold, unilateral editing. Tvoz/talk 07:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should revert to the introduction before you made major changes. That version was written fairly well and included some good information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your suggestion would've carried more weight if you hadn't just already reverted it. Shame that edit-warring is your preferred method of discourse. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Version before recent changes
For convenience, here is the recent stable (virtually unchanged for many weeks) version of the introduction before CoM and others started edit-warring over it:
- Barack Hussein Obama II (Template:Pron-en; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama was the junior United States Senator from Illinois from January 2005 until November 2008, when he resigned following his election to the presidency.
- Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. He worked as a community organizer in Chicago prior to earning his law degree, and practiced as a civil rights attorney in Chicago before serving three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.
- As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, Obama helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for U.S. military personnel returning from combat assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I recommend that future changes be worked out here, with this version used as a base, before being applied to the article. Stop edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've noticed that compared to other Presidential articles, there's not much about his personal life. Should we include a blurb about him marrying Michelle or hailing from Hawaii? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)
- First of all, this section is about the introduction of the article only. Secondly, this is a summary style article about Obama, so you will find much of the "meat" you are looking for in daughter articles linked to throughout the main article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I know, but all of the other introductions is what I was talking about. GWB has his marriage and business life mentioned, Reagan his life as an actor and state of birth, and Clinton his marriage. I just thought it would appropriate for a little blurb. Soxwon (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly, although the content of this article should not necessarily be determined by the content of other articles. Let's get the edit-warring stuff resolved before tackling new stuff, and don't forget to read WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I know, but right now it reads as if all he's ever done in life is politics. Shouldn't at least mention that he's human too? Soxwon (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly, although the content of this article should not necessarily be determined by the content of other articles. Let's get the edit-warring stuff resolved before tackling new stuff, and don't forget to read WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I know, but all of the other introductions is what I was talking about. GWB has his marriage and business life mentioned, Reagan his life as an actor and state of birth, and Clinton his marriage. I just thought it would appropriate for a little blurb. Soxwon (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, this section is about the introduction of the article only. Secondly, this is a summary style article about Obama, so you will find much of the "meat" you are looking for in daughter articles linked to throughout the main article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've noticed that compared to other Presidential articles, there's not much about his personal life. Should we include a blurb about him marrying Michelle or hailing from Hawaii? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)
- Per this reversion I see nothing objectionable in either version, and slightly favor the version ChildofMidnight reverted to for a number of stylistic reasons, so whatever people settle on is okay with me. As a process matter I strongly encourage people to make only incremental or uncontroversial changes, and to respect the need to discuss if those changes get reverted in good faith. Let's face it, most changes to most articles are not for the better, and that's especially true on a featured article. When edits fly by too fast to keep track of, we can't tell which is the good stable version, and the whole thing slowly degrades as a matter of entropy - even simple matters like punctuation, format, and link placement get messed up. Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and several editors were in the midst of discussing it here when CoM chose to go ahead and change it back without discussion. My edit was an attempt to be reflective of the exchanges here, including your concerns about the word "unexpected", to move the discussion along and I was hoping that CoM would respect the concept of discussion this time and not make his changes unilaterally. But apparently not. Tvoz/talk
MonthsYears (my God!) of experience with this article has shown me that it is far better to establish consensus on this talk page first, with all but the most minimal of changes. It is the only way to prevent edit warring. The changes Tvoz made did appear to reflect emerging consensus, but a certain amount of gun-jumping took place. CoM's reversion without discussion was understandable, but very antagonistic - especially given that CoM has been doing exactly the same thing as Tvoz in the ledes of lots of other articles, all of which have precipitated silly edit warring. Propose changes, build consensus, then make changes. Edit warring sucks. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)- Yeah, well, after 3 years and over 300 edits on this article, Scj, believe me I know how it goes! And this latest round is far from the worst I've seen here. I don't think my edit was gun-jumping, but rather, as I said, a "stab" at synthesizing the discussion and getting the wording closer to where it was when it was stable before the willy-nilly editing began, because the material that had been added was poorly written and not representative of any kind of discussion, let alone consensus. And my edit was accompanied by requests for discussion in edit summary, on the page itself, on this talk page, and on CoM's talk page. So I was not edit warring and I don't think his reversion without discussion was the least bit understandable. Tvoz/talk 02:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with your edits at all. All I'm saying is that there has been a recent influx of partisan editors, mostly of the Limbaugh persuasion, so a return to the propose → consensus → edit system is probably prudent - at least for a while. I am not accusing you of edit warring specifically, but I am suggesting that "going for it" might precipitate an edit war in this current climate. And let me add a qualifier to my suggestion that CoM's reversion was understandable - it was understandable given CoM's editing history, if you get my drift. Anyway, according to the ArbCom case currently (and in my opinion, ludicrously) underway, this is a "toxic atmosphere" for editing; therefore, I recommend going back to the arduous talk-about-every-little-thing-for-weeks system that flourished under the WB74 era. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- WB74. Did you have to remind me? OK, I'll go along with this, but if others don't, something will have to be done. We've worked too hard on this article to sit by and let it be hijacked. Tvoz/talk 04:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with your edits at all. All I'm saying is that there has been a recent influx of partisan editors, mostly of the Limbaugh persuasion, so a return to the propose → consensus → edit system is probably prudent - at least for a while. I am not accusing you of edit warring specifically, but I am suggesting that "going for it" might precipitate an edit war in this current climate. And let me add a qualifier to my suggestion that CoM's reversion was understandable - it was understandable given CoM's editing history, if you get my drift. Anyway, according to the ArbCom case currently (and in my opinion, ludicrously) underway, this is a "toxic atmosphere" for editing; therefore, I recommend going back to the arduous talk-about-every-little-thing-for-weeks system that flourished under the WB74 era. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, after 3 years and over 300 edits on this article, Scj, believe me I know how it goes! And this latest round is far from the worst I've seen here. I don't think my edit was gun-jumping, but rather, as I said, a "stab" at synthesizing the discussion and getting the wording closer to where it was when it was stable before the willy-nilly editing began, because the material that had been added was poorly written and not representative of any kind of discussion, let alone consensus. And my edit was accompanied by requests for discussion in edit summary, on the page itself, on this talk page, and on CoM's talk page. So I was not edit warring and I don't think his reversion without discussion was the least bit understandable. Tvoz/talk 02:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
More than 60 days in office and not one word about his Presidency
The man has been POTUS since late January and there is not one word about his Presidency. Not one word about his order to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan, not one word about an $800 billion stimulus plan, not one word about the multiple WH plans regarding the financial industry. Don't you think the first 60+ days of this administration are newsworthy? 98.218.226.1 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, which article are you reading? Did you miss the section headed, cleverly, "Presidency"? This is a summary-style article, so the details and longer discussions will be found in the sub articles that are listed under the headings - as in Presidency of Barack Obama - but there is indeed a short summary of the beginning of his presidency right here in our article, talking about the things you mention and more. And, by the way, "newsworthy" is not our standard here - we're not writing a news article, we're writing an encyclopedia biography of his whole life and career. Take another look at the article. Tvoz/talk 03:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- True, in principle, Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, but in practice it reports on what's very new. (As hinted by what we see at the top right of the top page.) And the notability guidelines aren't so far from "Has this at some time been newsworthy?" -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good point, although I do think "notable" and "newsworthy" are a little different. But ok, on that. Tvoz/talk 04:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the anon is a newbie. I suggest a See also section be added to the article. That should prevent the misconception that Obama's presidency isn't being covered in Misplaced Pages. SMP0328. (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think we've exhausted the "See also" discussion already - they are throughout the article and I don't think that is what the problem was here. And yes, he/she is probably a newbie, but newbies can read, and there's not much evidence that this person read the article. Is our "Presidency" section not exactly what he says we say "not one word" about? Does it not have a clearly marked pointer that says Main article: Presidency of Barack Obama? Sorry, but AGF only goes so far. Tvoz/talk 04:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- True, in principle, Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, but in practice it reports on what's very new. (As hinted by what we see at the top right of the top page.) And the notability guidelines aren't so far from "Has this at some time been newsworthy?" -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure this will be quickly removed, but out of loyalty to the cause, why is the statement that Obama won't smoke in the white house more important than the disputed birth certificate? (That has sparked many news articles and lawsuits regardless if you feel they are worthy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.241.45 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- The point about not smoking in the White House is not particularly important in my view, but I also don't see a real problem with it being there. The birth certificate issue is a widely debunked conspiracy theory. We don't include widely debunked conspiracy theories about living people in their bios, though the controversy is obviously covered here. Readers who come to Misplaced Pages wanting information about the birth certificate issue will find it, they just won't (and should not) find it here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Because Obama really made the statement that he will not smoke in the White House, i.e., the statement has something to do with reality. And because the statement comes from Obama, who is notable, whereas the birthergate buffoonery comes from--oh, why am I even bothering? Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) Essentially, this article is Obama's biography, so it covers matters which are agreed to be important parts of his life. The lawsuits are documented extensively at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
"Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam" by Daniel Pipes
| Partisan blogs are not reliable sources, and we really don't need to cover this same ground for the 100th time. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
From http://www.danielpipes.org/5354/confirmed-barack-obama-practiced-islam In the article, Daniel Pipes concluded: "Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque. This precisely substantiates my statement that he "for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father." Misplaced Pages recognizes Pipes as an expert on the subject and so the above research should be included in the Family and personal life section. See also: http://www.danielpipes.org/5845/barack-obama-through-muslim-eyes http://www.danielpipes.org/5544/barack-obamas-muslim-childhood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.3.155 (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
←Let's be clear about this. Pipes is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. He may be knowledgeable about Middle Eastern matters, but his personal website cannot be used as sourcing for a BLP. In addition, reasonable people should have grave concerns about someone who would say this:
I have followed family and friends into churches on many occasions, but I am (and always will be) an atheist. Being in a church does not automatically mean he prayed. Maybe he just want to be with his stepfather. And how credible is the testimony of the neighbors when we know nothing about them or their motivations? That is a supposition on the part of Pipes, and if he is willing to make guesses like that and call it "confirmation" then his evidence must be treated as highly suspect. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
|
whoops!
Text on this subject reads "Early life and career. Main article: Early life and career of Barack Obama. Barack The Bomber was born at...etc"
Barack The Bomber?! Surely not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.69.96 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be fixed. I remember a Frankie Boyle joke that said "'Obama' must be the worst name to have in American politics: it's halfway between 'Osama' and 'A bomber'! He might as well have been called 'Muslim Ogunbomb'!" Sceptre 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- People who revert vandalism should remember to click the purge link at the top of this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, what does purging the cache do?LedRush (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:PURGE for a full explanation, but basically it forces Misplaced Pages to delete the cached version on the server and rebuild the page. Being a hefty, popular page, the cached version gets called upon often. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Didn't we conclude, as detailed on WP:PURGE, that the cache is purged whenever the article is edited? The purpose of the manual purge is to propagate updates to templates and images on the page. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:PURGE for a full explanation, but basically it forces Misplaced Pages to delete the cached version on the server and rebuild the page. Being a hefty, popular page, the cached version gets called upon often. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, what does purging the cache do?LedRush (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- People who revert vandalism should remember to click the purge link at the top of this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Obama's approval rating falling
Why you write only the positive items about Obama?! From the current article: "In 2008, Congress.org ranked him as the eleventh most powerful Senator, and the politician was the most popular in the Senate, enjoying 72% approval in Illinois."
That's good, but you write 0 words about his big rating's falling, source:
It would be good to write about it also in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.149.128 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think the main difficulty with this article will be making adjustments to the section on his presidency since we must write that in summary style. Ultimately I think we'll need a sentence or two on his overall approval rating and how it shifted over time. I don't think we're at that point yet though. If we were going to say something about his approval ratings right now, it would be that they are still fairly high, hovering around 60%. In the poll you cite, the decline in approval (5 points) was probably close to the margin of error (though the increase in disapproval was more significant). That's just not significant enough to include in his biographical article.
- What the presidency section lacks now, but which we'll definitely have to have eventually, is a brief discussion of Obama's economic policies, and that might be a good point to discuss approval ratings. But I think we're a couple of months away from being able to cover that properly. A good landmark, so to speak, might be at the end of the First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency. Media are guaranteed to widely cover that and evaluate the presidency up to that point, and I imagine that would also mark a good point to discuss Obama's approval rating and to generally revise the section on his presidency. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Approval ratings are only biographically relevant with the benefit of hindsight and statistical significance. Neither of these apply to Obama right now. I agree with Bigtimepeace's observations about other more likely foci for improvement. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- A link to the existing first 100 days article might be useful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Approval ratings go up and down. If it is mentioned, it is only appropriate to mention overall trends, if even that. Of course, detailed remarks would be ok if there is an article about the "Approval Ratings of President Barack Obama", if such article exists. Spevw (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- The relevance of approval ratings is that they drive media coverage. When president's numbers are up, the press asks, "What is he doing right?" When the number are down, its all, "What's he doing wrong?/Why is he screwing up?/etc" Whether they are statistically significant or measure anything real is beside the point. They don't allow you to predict an election outcome because approval of one person is a fundamentally different thing than choosing between two. Kauffner (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thankfully, we are not the media. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and that's all. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"Controversies and criticism" section
| Conversation about a different article |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
At Presidency of George W. Bush, a section entitled "Controversies and criticism" exists. An editor has raised a proposal to remove the section, as per precedent established here, and per WP:CRIT. Although the section deals with someone other than Barack Obama, I thought to alert editors here to the discussion because the issue of this type of section has been dealt with multiple times regarding Barack Obama, so I imagined such experience would be useful in determining a decision regarding the proposal. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Presidency of George W. Bush#Criticisms/Controversies section. Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance if you get involved. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Photo Agenda
| rant |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why do all of the photos of Obama posing with one other Politician exclusively include Republicans. This seems to be a political decision to portray Obama as bipartisan by showing him only with Republicans. Things like this, however subtle, undermine the integrity of the article because they suggest a deliberate effort to portray the president in a certain light that they find advantageous to him politically. The point is that it doesn't make sense to show Obama with only Republican senators, and not a single democratic senator. JohnHistory (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory There are em.. two such pictures, one of which is him with someone he co-sponsored a bill with. If you have some suggestions for some alternatives pictures, don't hold back - let's hear them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not denigrate me. Can't we just discuss the issue without personal conjecture? I think Obama with Ted Kennedy (that was seen as a key endorsement) or Obama with one of his fellow Dem colleagues and leaders like Pelosi or Reid would be more balanced then 100% republicans. By the way, Carter and Clinton are not senators that served with Obama. Ironically, even the photo you are talking about has Obama sandwhiched in between both the Bush presidents not next to carter or CLinton. JohnHistory (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
did you just call me "stupid". I cannot believe this. You block people for personal attacks and then you just come at them. THis is totally relevant. JohnHistory (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
Thanks for engaging on the issues and not personally insulting me by calling me "stupid" "lunatic" "lusting" etc. The hypocrisy is so rife that its almost hilarious. To think I was blocked for merely saying the word "juvenile" but you guys will be just fine. You are the one who has to live with it not me. Why can't you have an honest debate without insulting and denigrating those you don't agree with? Is this the state of wikipedia today? I hope not. The issue I brought up is not ridiculous it makes sense. Why didn't any of you notice this? JohnHistory (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory |
Wagoner
See WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOT#NEWS. Plus, since this seems to be just coming out, it's largely unverified. "Claimed" to be asked by Obama does not equal fact. Grsz 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed (heck can we just lock this for 10 years, then try and edit it with a little more perspective?) Soxwon (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean that material will never be fit to be in the article or only that it isn't until it's confirmed by a reliable source? SMP0328. (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- We mean that it's impossible to measure the relevance a single event has on the entirety of Obama's life the very day it happens. Grsz 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Or for that matter is laregly based on unnamed sources (this is Misplaced Pages not the New York Times) Soxwon (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- We mean that it's impossible to measure the relevance a single event has on the entirety of Obama's life the very day it happens. Grsz 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean that material will never be fit to be in the article or only that it isn't until it's confirmed by a reliable source? SMP0328. (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it seems like some people around here are reading from the same talking points cue cards. Time and time again, on various articles, they use the reliable source justification, in complete ignorance (willful or intentional, I am not sure) of that fact that RS policy does not exist in a vacuum, and is not the sole arbiter of what can appear in Misplaced Pages articles. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This is relevant because it is highly unusual for a president to tell someone outside of government...you are fired. But I am willing to wait a few months to see how this whole thing plays out. If the auto issue remains a significant part of his presidency, then this may be an important point.
I am also willing to freeze the presidency section completely and open it for editing every 6 months. We'll then have some handle on what's important. Why not write WP:OLDNEWSONLY Contino (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Presidency section
I know we're going for summary style here, but the entries under Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy / Iraq seem too sparse to me. Under Foreign Policy, Obama's major initiatives have been the plan to scale back Iraq and to beef up Afghanistan, but only Iraq is mentioned (though in the context of an address to troops going to Afghanistan). I recommend that the Afghan ramp-up be mentioned, resulting more or less in:
- Early in his presidency, Obama moved to implement the war strategy he had campaigned on, scaling back combat operations in Iraq and intensifying the effort in Afghanistan. On February 18, 2009 he announced that the U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan would be boosted by 17,000. On February 27, 2009, Obama declared that combat operations will end in Iraq within 18 months, telling Marines preparing to deploy to Afghanistan, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."
In Domestic Policy, I would eliminate the Economic Policy subheading until we we need at least one more subheading, and go with:
- On February 17, 2009, Obama signed into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package, which included increased Federal spending, aid to states, and tax reductions. He stated in his remarks that the intended goal was to ameliorate the effects of the recession. Although Obama made a high-profile visit to Captiol Hill to engage with Congressional Republicans, the bill ultimately passed largely on a party-line vote.
Either of these may need to be pared down once his presidency builds some more substance. The mention of the party-line vote seems significant since bipartianship was an important part of his campaign rhetoric and is mentioned three times in the state legislator section. Plus, it might quiet critics who complain that there's nothing even faintly negative about Obama on the page.
Forgot to sign that posting. CouldOughta (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The sentence about the Afghan beefup needs a reference: CouldOughta (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Obama would send 7,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, lessen force in Iraq
- Feller, Ben (2009-02-27). "Obama sets firm withdrawal timetable for Iraq". CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C.: Yahoo! News. Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-03-03.
- "Obama's remarks on signing the stimulus plan". Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
- "Stimulus package en route to Obama's desk". Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Retrieved 2009-03-29.
- "Obama launches Afghanistan surge". The Australian. February 19, 2009.
CouldOughta (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Need to define what is included in article
One person removed a section about the auto bailout and firing (asked to resign) of the GM CEO. This leads me to think that there needs to be a more orderly process of editing. The WP:Not News argument is used. That's a way to argue against inclusion. How about arguments for inclusion? Before you say something, the argument you use should be applicable to every edit, not just the auto/GM one. This will help the article if we come up with a defined criteria for inclusion.
Continued news reporting should NOT be a criteria. Look at newspaper within today. There is no mention at all of Pearl Harbor. The Pearl Harbor bombing is unquestionably encyclopedic. So daily news coverage is not a criteria.
Border control issues are probably very important to the communities near the Mexican border. Yet that might not be much of an issue elsewhere. If you accept this to be true, then should the criteria be that Misplaced Pages is only geared to the general audience and not a specialized audience. If so, then subjects to be included in this article should be geared to the general public with exclusion to specialized audiences.
To summarize, I think that after a while (as of now, an undefined period but certainly not 1-2 days after the event), we should consider major items that either pertain to the general audience, are of interest to the general audience, or that the general audience would think are one of the major points of Barack Obama. The exception would be content which we are certain will stand the test of time (such as winning an election or having a heart attack).
I would like a few people to agree with the above paragraph. If you disagree, then you should state what are the criteria. By doing it now, we make it objective and orderly. Contino (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- To my mind, things like WP:SS define what should be in the article, and things like WP:BLP define what shouldn't. This article is supposed to be a summary of Barack Obama's life, which means it summarizes significant facts and events (consensus discussions determine what is and is not "significant") and broadly describes a few other biographical details. I'm not sure defining specific things will be all that productive. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- If we don't define it then there is a risk that people who love him will want only positive things and people who hate him will want only negative things and people in the middle who want an encyclopedic article will be so turned off that they will leave. Also, by not defining inclusion criteria, we risk just a popularity contest. We all know what happened to Bush, Sr....very popular then not popular.
- A reasonable criteria would be that all sections must have a valid reason for inclusion and each section must summarize the most important points and have no unimportant points. For example, Obama's childhood dog, if he had one, would be less important that Obama's school that he went to. Therefore, the school information has higher priority.
- By having these criteria, you no longer support or oppose information you like or don't like. I think this is the best way to define criteria objectively rather than "if I see it and don't like the subject or information, I oppose it". This is also a way to get rid of "Is Obama really an American?" because that is of so little importance compared to Obama's date of birth and college information that it can be objectively disposed of by the importance criteria. Contino (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- To my knowledge we've never had a successful concicse proposal anywhere in the encyclopedia for deciding in advance what the exact criteria are for whether content should be included in an article. So I doubt it can be done here. Instead, the decision is made on a case-by-case basis via a mix of many content policies, guidelines, essays, and principles, plus sound editorial discretion. Things must be reliably sourced, neutral, not of undue weight, relevant and significant, and in the right place. They should educate the reader, be written at a level accessible to an interested lay reader, give a better encyclopedic understanding of the subject matter, avoid offering opinions and argumentation, be structured and in prose form where practical rather than a directory or collection of facts, avoid "in universe" descriptions, etc. I doubt any rule would dissuade truly partisan or biased editors, it would simply give them some new rule to construe the way they want. The best way to go about it, for all the rest, is not to think in terms of information being biased or not (unless it is over the top), but rather whether it helps tell the story of Obama's life and career, which is what the article is about. Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class biography articles
- FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press