Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:24, 14 May 2013 editSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,556,045 editsm Signing comment by Tejanochica - "→IRS, AP phone tap, Benghazi: new section"← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:35, 14 May 2013 edit undoScjessey (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,029 edits →IRS, AP phone tap, Benghazi Next edit →
Line 305:		Line 305:

	Mainstream media is now covering the IRS targeting of groups under the label "Tea Party," as well as the revisions made to the Benghazi talking points and the U.S. DOJ's tapping of AP phone records. They now appear to be treating these as scandals. Is there a reason why there is no mention of any of these scandals in the Obama article? I am assuming it's due to the fact that these events have not yet unfolded to their entirety. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		Mainstream media is now covering the IRS targeting of groups under the label "Tea Party," as well as the revisions made to the Benghazi talking points and the U.S. DOJ's tapping of AP phone records. They now appear to be treating these as scandals. Is there a reason why there is no mention of any of these scandals in the Obama article? I am assuming it's due to the fact that these events have not yet unfolded to their entirety. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:There are several reasons why these things are not covered in this article, but the main reason would be that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Barack Obama. The IRS and the Justice Department are independent branches of government, and only right wing fringe crazies think Benghazi is a "scandal". -- ] (]) 22:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:35, 14 May 2013

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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: 7 days

Skip to table of contents

faq page Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.

Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article? A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See , , The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)? A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it? A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common? A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc? A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? A7: Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article! A8: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy. A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened? A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A11: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this? A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Disruption Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly? A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed! A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article. A15: That's understandable. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted! A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:

Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted.
On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance.

New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies and sourcing guidelines. Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail? A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.

Template:Community article probation

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 12, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 18, 2004	Today's featured article	Main Page
January 23, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
July 26, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
April 15, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
September 16, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
November 4, 2008	Today's featured article	Main Page
December 2, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
March 10, 2009	Featured article review	Kept
March 16, 2010	Featured article review	Kept
June 17, 2012	Featured article review	Kept
October 22, 2012	Featured article review	Kept
A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

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 the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Congress High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Illinois High‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hawaii Mid‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Kansas Mid‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chicago Top‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

African diaspora Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Africa: Kenya Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kenya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance).

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Presidents / State Legislatures / Government Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

More information:
/
	This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Illinois portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Chicago portal.
	This article has been selected for use on the Hawaii portal.

Template:WikiProject CD-People

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as High-importance).

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Jose Antonio Vargas (September 17, 2007). "On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post.
Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (April 3,2008). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (April 4, 2008). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR.
Eve Fairbanks (April 9, 2008). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic.
Jesse Brown (April 10, 2008). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One.
Tom Foreman (April 11, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN.
John J. Miller (April 21, 2008). "Liberal Web". National Review.
Kelly Heyboer (May 28, 2008). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger.
Paul Murnane (May 28, 2008). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880.
Noam Cohen (November 9, 2008). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times.
Adrian Bridgwater (January 22, 2009). "Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack". ZDNet.
Aaron Klein (March 8, 2009). "Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility". WorldNetDaily.
Joshua Rhett Miller (March 9, 2009). "Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers". Fox News Channel.
Mark Coleman (March 10, 2009). "Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims". The Daily Telegraph.
Noam Cohen (July 19, 2009). "Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". The New York Times.
Staff (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

Template:Stable version

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

Special discussion pages:
Article probation, Incidents

Historical diffs, Weight, Race

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Drones

I propose we include neutral and proportionate mention of the drone attacks, sourced to the many reliable sources previously proposed. I also propose we update the Afghanistan section, work which has been outstanding for nine months now. --John (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, what's your idea of "neutral and proportionate mention of the drone attacks"? To me, they're just another military tool. The USA, as the world's single superpower, has more military tools of different types than anybody else. We all know that. We don't mention any other military devices here. What's special about the drones? (I ask that question seriously.)

The same applies to the Afghanistan stuff. What wording would you propose? HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this stuff needs to be worked out at Presidency of Barack Obama first, and then (and only then) summarized here in accordance with summary style and in the appropriate weight. This approach is the only way to ensure such a complex topic is given the attention is deserves. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We can do both, but there really is not that much mainstream coverage of the war in Afghanistan or drone attacks, relatively speaking. So any additions should be succinct and neutral, in proportion to the rest of the article mentions. Using drones to target enemies in a war is a relatively new technology, that are designed to lower casualties for American soldiers and civilians. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that people are conflating the "kill list" narrative with the use of drones, even though the two are actually separate issues. That is why all the silly arm-waving and demands need to give way to proper discussion about the issues in the appropriate forum. I'm going to oppose any inclusion of this stuff until I see it in Presidency of Barack Obama, because if it isn't notable enough to include in an article on Obama's presidency, it certainly isn't going to be notable enough to include in an article on Obama's biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Scjessey, you are incorrect to oppose edits to this article based on what is missing from other articles. your and others editors opinions/voting of a facts significance is irrelevant, the frequency of RS is the determining factor. much of the material in this article appears in print far less: Crain's Chicago Business to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be. Obama's kill list (yes kill list and Obama are always connected in the RS) has major media coverage in several countries. as to this not being an important part of someone's life, balderdash, nothing could be more germane than PERSONALLY deciding to take the life of another person. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we're beginning to see the crux of the problem...or, your problem, that is, in that you place an inordinate value on "the to take the life of another person". The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, i.e. those people who serve our country valiantly, trained to take a person's life if the situation arises. We still have this little thing called a War on Terror that is ongoing y'know, and in a war, people die. There's really nothing untowards about any of this, the only new wrinkle is president himself issuing the final "go order" rather than it being left to one of the Joint Chiefs or a general in the field. It's just a matter of degrees, and all in all not terribly significant other than to those that thought electing a Democratic president meant we were going to shoot the bad guys with rainbows and puppy kisses. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all irrelevant though. The Kill List has received sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion. Whether or not the large amount of media attention on the Kill List is justified shouldn't make a difference to it's inclusion. Keted6 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the point sailed over your head. The point is that it is a routine aspect of the war on terror. Just being "in the news" is not in itself a sufficient criteria to warrant inclusion, especially to a personal biography article. There has always been someone to make the call to carry out a kill-not-capture op, there's nothing especially remarkable about the president wanting it to trickle up to him. It may be relevant to the presidency, i.e. something to cover at the foreign policy or war section of Presidency of Barack Obama, but the overall point here is it isn't directly relevant to Obama himself. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much coverage there is if it isn't germane. This is the biography, and the "kill list" and/or drone program aren't biographically significant at this time. There's massive coverage all over the internet about the Puppy Bowl, but that isn't germane to Obama's biography either. And yes, I know that is a ridiculous example, but I'm tired of all the bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, how does your dismissal of this as just "routine" not count at original research? We should not be deciding what is and is not remarkable when the rest of the world, as shown through RS, say it is remarkable. It'd be one thing if this was a short lived or passing controversy with little coverage, but it is not. What you are saying, if properly sourced, could be added as part of a legal argument in defense of the president's actions, but it does not dismiss that the world IS treating this as not routine, and we here at Misplaced Pages do not get to define the world. That you believe this not to be far out of normal presidential power is your opinion, but the rest of the world, as shown by RS, is treating this as something new and a "big deal." Scjessey, what is your standard for biographically significant? Your puppy bowl example, frankly it borders on insulting to bring it up. That coverage does not have anything to do with the president and is not an action of the president. Please treat other editors with respect and realism if you wish to be in return. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I did say it was a "ridiculous example". Something that is "biographically significant" speaks for itself. Has it had a significant effect on Obama's life, or is it a key component of Obama's life story? No? Then it doesn't belong. A possible loophole, however, is if it becomes very significant to Obama's presidency. In which case, it will become a big part of Presidency of Barack Obama and it will form part of the summary of that article that we have in this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with OuroborosCobra. I think we are seeing fatigue among some of the defenders of the poor state of the article. Hint: it's ok to take a break and get on with something else if you're tired of preventing improvement here. It must be exhausting, all that stonewalling. It's a wiki, and other people have the right to edit it. Your OR, and your snippy comments and bad faith, aren't helpful or desired here. --John (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That all sounds very impressive, John, but I've become familiar enough with your modus operandi to simply ignore it. The article does indeed need improvement, but the proposal here is the exact opposite of improvement. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not ignoring it. Ignoring it, is actually not posting when you have nothing whatsoever to add. Try it, you'll find it rather refreshing. --John (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the delicious irony of your last comment! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Common sense isn't original research, I'm afraid. Every word, utterance, and gesture of the US President is covered by a reliable source day in and day out. Pardoning the presidential turkey, what he buys the First Lady for Christmas, and what is on the White House Easter Dinner table are all found in many reliable sources. Having the buck stop one notch up the ladder regarding kill lists is just...shrug. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not common sense, that's why it's original research. To say that the coverage the Kill List receives is just above that of food on the Easter Dinner table is ridiculous. It receives much more coverage than some of what is already in the article, such as On September 30, 2009, the Obama administration proposed new regulations on power plants, factories and oil refineries in an attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to curb global warming. Keted6 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

@Tarc: That's true, to some extent. It is an editorial decision. However, especially if we have pretensions to keeping this an FA, we cannot ignore the widespread and significant coverage of the drone attacks (note I am not bringing up "kill lists" here, that was your suggestion). This coverage goes right across the political spectrum and is long term. My other proposal was to update the Afghanistan section; when I introduced the "update" tag in July 2012 I must admit I did not foresee it still being there nine months (and one election) later. What's that about? --John (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between relevance to the president personally and relevance to the office of the presidency, though. Presidency of Barack Obama#Overseas Contingency Operation is looking pretty sparse at the moment, and could probably benefit from some expanded drone coverage. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, reviewing a list of names and deciding which die is absolutely relevant to any man. the argument that every leader does the same but in secret is irrelevant, Obama is the only blp on wp with a kill list. that alone should merit inclusion. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's your opinion, and that carries no special weight here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

prove me wrong, which other blp has a kill list? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

@John: Can you please suggest some text? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Really, Darkstar? The only BLP on WP with a kill list? You really believe that? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

afg plz and yes i do, which other blp on wp has a kill list? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, though unless you have evidence to back up your suggestion that no other living person on Misplaced Pages has or ever had a kill list a personal opinion of that sort would likely not be given much if any consideration.--174.93.164.125 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

no, it is a fact. search kill list in tools, nothing on wp will match that term, unlike several mainstream publishers on several continents who specifically mention Obama's kill list. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, we started with a polite request for discussion about what we can write about drones and Afghanistan, and we've ended up at the "kill list", yet again. There's a huge problem on display there. Crappy discussion behaviour, sidetracking yet again, plus some people obsessed with the "kill list". So, if we must discuss that, my perspective is that every major power throughout history would have had a kill list. Reading a bit of history makes that obvious. Those heads rolling around on the floor in the Tower of London and around the Guillotine in Paris come immediately to mind, and that's just my European historical bias on display while eating my breakfast. There will be hundreds more examples in history. The big development surrounding the USA's list in Obama's time is that it's become more public, and the President, the popularly elected guy, has taken responsibility for it rather than leaving it in the hands of unknown, unelected military commanders. This is all surely a very good development. I can't see how it helps those who want more negatives about Obama in the article at all. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The more significant and relevant revolve around: (1) drone warfare, or drones in general, (2) killings by a government that take place outside of a context of either a war or judicial review (extrajudicial or so-called "targeted" killings) — whether or not there is a list, that's a side issue, and (3) the context of international relations and mideast / terrorism policy. All of that is highly notable, and each of these has its own series of articles where most of the substance of the issue resides on Misplaced Pages. The question is whether to include an anchor point here, a sentence or two and a link to the main article. Or if not here, how far up the tree of presidential articles Wikilink and have the discussion in that article's space. I'm not convinced that the significance X relevance is high enough given the current state of the sources. I didn't say I'm convinced it doesn't belong either, just that I'm hoping for some yardstick that's more objective than each person's personal analysis of how big of an issue it is. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's probably best to start with a survey of the sources. I know this has been discussed a bunch of times here. Can we pull together what sources discuss this in specific relation to Obama? I know from my own reading that both The Guardian and The Economist have discussed it in detail. Once we see the range of sources and how they cover it we can discuss wording. --John (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's probably best to not jump the gun on this, and to first try to agree on whether any mention of the drones is due content at all in THIS article. It must be obvious to you that, no matter what you think on that matter, many disagree with you. Leaping ahead as you are trying to do is simply being confrontational. (And political?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Leaping ahead? Ah yes, you're right. It's only been nine months. Let's leave it another year or two, would you say? Are you on the same calendar as the rest of us? We can't continue to retard the development of this article with good sources, and also keep the FA star. Which would you prefer? --John (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We'd prefer that you followed WP:CONSENSUS and WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Also, we'd prefer you would accept the totally obvious fact that the drone program is not biographically significant (at least not yet). At this point, it is getting very hard to assume good faith, since you just keep repeating the same point. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please try. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Break - Drones Cont.

It seems clear to me that UCAVs are biographically notable to Barack Obama just like the Gatling gun was biographically notable to Abraham Lincoln. That is, almost notable enough for a one-line mention in the bio (but not quite; notice the Gatling gun is never even mentioned in the Lincoln bio). MUCH more notable to War on Terror (where it gets four brief mentions). That seems about right. It's an advance in military technology, and like every advance in military technology that came before it, it carries some political controversy, but that doesn't make it biographically notable to the President. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely; however, it is not inconceivable that this may change in the future. At the other end of the scale, for example, an "advance in military technology" was quite biographically significant for Harry S. Truman. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

True, and I am open to that possibility in the future, but as things stand now, the most significant military developments that Mr. Obama has had a hand in were carried out face-to-face, not by drone strikes. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The comparison with Harry S. Truman is quite a compelling one. That's a decent Featured Article on a fairly modern and fairly controversial US President; it's well-written and reasonably well-balanced. There's (rightly in my view) a whole section on his decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan; there's also (rather unusually on an FA) a Criticism and controversies section near the end. I can't see a long rambling section on which American football and baseball teams the president supported; maybe the writers and reviewers reckoned this would be worthless fluff on a serious encyclopaedia article about a US president. I'd be interested to see what the defenders of the current article on Obama would say in evaluating the comparative quality of the two articles. Before commenting, you'll have to read the two articles from start to finish, as I have just done. Never mind the FA criteria; this article is miles away from meeting them and won't any time soon. Just compare basic writing (Obama article riddled with basic faults and errors), NPOV (an awful lot of glowing, but somewhat vacuous, praise of Obama, yet suspiciously little criticism) and ask yourself if this article is all it can be. Take your time. It's been embarrassingly awful for several years now, so a few more days or weeks won't hurt. --John (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe that any editor that would compare the use of Drones to using a nuclear weapon could write a neutral section on the use of drones by the US military at the direction of the President. In my view, editors here have had the chance to include a short mention in the Prez article, and perhaps even here, but the absolute over-reach by a few are preventing the very inclusion they seek. If editors who seem neutral on this issue (Wikidemon and Wilhelm perhaps), wish to get together and include a section in the Prez article, and mention it here, I would be happy to support or even help. Other than that, I can't see a way forward with editors using such extreme examples. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

DD2K, dial it back. The comparison to nuclear weapons use was not brought up by editors in favor of include drones in this article, as you are attacking them. It was brought up first by Scjessey, who opposes including content on drones in this article. If you are going to attack people for such a comparison and say they cannot edit with neutrality... then who are you attacking? The people who want change in the article did not bring up the nuclear weapon comparison. Nor was Scjessey's bringing it up a comparison of drones to nuclear weapons as a scale of the weapon, but rather whether the use of the weapon (either as a new technology, new tactic, etc.) was biographically significant. It was biographically significant to Truman. Similarly, the use of drones could be significant, as their use as a choice of the president has been in a manner that is significant beyond "new military technology." Gatling guns, while changing the battlefield, were not used in a direct presidential-approval manner under Lincoln, and were used in the same battlefields and against the same targets as any other weapon before then. Drones have differences, and these are in the direct presidential-approval uses. They are being used to wage conflict in violation of another nation's sovereignty when we are neither in conflict with that nation or having congressional approval to do so. The closest comparison I can come up with is the campaign in Laos, which is mentioned in both our Kennedy and Nixon articles. It can be argued they are also being used against US citizens, without trial or standard due process, outside of a battlefield environment. Drones may represent just another in a long line of military technology advancements, but their specific use is unique and different. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Dial it back? Whether that's a pun or not, I don't know. But I don't need to dial anything back. If you wish to elevate the discussion, you might want to either make a proposal here or at the Prez article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC) (Refractored)Dave Dial (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Dial it back to the point that you are not attacking people for comparing drones warfare to nuclear warfare when the people you are attacking aren't the ones who brought nuclear weapons into this. They didn't make that comparison. As for making a proposal, I've got to ask, to what end? It's been made exceedingly clear, especially by editors like Scjessey, that no mention of drones will be acceptable in any form. Unless they are willing to say that making a proposal is the least bit worth the effort, why should we? Scjessey, are you and other editors willing to consider a proposal regarding drone warfare? Otherwise, we are back to convincing them that mention is at all warranted to begin with. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

At this point, the use of drones has become politically significant enough to perhaps warrant a mention at Presidency of Barack Obama, but it has most certainly not become biographically significant. It is possible that will change in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. And what do you base that on, other than your own opinion? Any thoughts on the points I made in my 16:55 post? --John (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have one thought on your 16.55 post. It's absolutely stupid to compare drones with nuclear bombs on Japan. The difference in scale and impact is immense. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to wish I'd never mentioned Truman. I brought it up as an example of a biographically significant use of weapons by a president. While there has been extensive exposition in reliable sources about the drone program, I've not seen any that would characterize their use as a defining factor of Obama's presidency, let alone of his life. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Are his sporting affiliations a "defining factor"? I wasn't aware that was a criterion for inclusion here. --John (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

i disagree the technology is the issue here Scjessey. the similarity being made here is both have knowingly targeted sites with a high probability of civilian casualties, often a defining characteristic of a war crime. there currently are no blp on wp close to such a distinction not mentioned. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

@John - His sporting affiliations are biographically significant, John. How is it possible that you don't know what a biography is?

@Darkstar1st - There is no similarity whatsoever. The dropping of the atomic bomb changed the whole planet forever. Taking out a few terrorists (regardless of how it is done) is trivial by comparison. Trying to push this narrative is idiotic. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks once again for sharing your opinion, Scjessey. Have you ever read a history book? Have you ever edited any other featured articles on biographical subjects? Is it possible you don't know what a Featured Article looks like? If you are honestly, without hyperbole, claiming that Obama's likings for a particular American football team and a particular baseball team are "biographically significant", and his use of drones are not, then it really is time you went out and edited some other articles and gained more experience. This would help us to take your opinions even more seriously. --John (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are completely wrong about this, John. It seems you cannot tell the difference between biographical significance and political significance. The use of drones isn't even unique to Obama, for goodness sake. This article definitely needs some work to retain its featured status (because of outdated material), but the stuff you are calling for is not appropriate. If you go and read reliable sources, you will find that most Obama biographies in newspapers/magazines talk about exactly the sort of stuff we have in this article, right down to the White Sox and left-handedness crap. None of them mention drones. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. The fact that even you as a defender of the sports material refer to it as "crap" doesn't inspire me with confidence. Here's two related questions; why do you think the Truman article does not contain such material; do you think it is a lack that needs to be addressed? Do you think history books written in 20 or in 50 years will follow your priorities? This last is what I meant by recentism. --John (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not use the term "crap" to belittle the content. I regularly use the word instead of "stuff" (example: "I need to clear all the crap away in the living room because we have guests coming."). I haven't read the Truman article, so I don't know what is or is not missing from there. Nor do I care, since what goes on in one article has no bearing on what goes on in another and I have no interest in the Truman article at all. I am not an American, and I am not really interested in American history. With respect to "history books", I would say that typical biographies about historical figures will have all sorts of information, from the significant to the trivial. If something isn't really relevant to the life story of the subject, it is unlikely to feature unless it is tangentially interesting. President Obama did not start the drone program. President Obama does not personally oversee the drone program. President Obama isn't a notable figure in the drone program. The media does not refer to the drone program as an Obama thing that will have any meaningful impact on his presidency, let alone his life. So it should be clear to anyone that the drone program (at this point) has absolutely zero biographical relevance. This is in stark contrast to Truman and the dropping of the bomb, which was a life-defining moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

← OuroborosCobra, I think Dave Dial was clearly saying that he doesn't see a section on drones as belonging here in the biography of the life and career of Barack Obama - or at least not at this time, as Scjessey has said more than once - the proposal Dave was suggesting is for something to perhaps be added to the Presidency of Barack Obama article where it would more appropriately belong, with a possible reference here. No one has said here, as far as I've noticed, that drones cannot be mentioned in any Obama related article, just that the biography is not the place, now, for more than a reference. It is not at all clear that if there had been a Misplaced Pages bio of Harry Truman during his presidency that the bio would have talked about his use of nuclear weapons on Japan - maybe so, maybe not - but surely now, with the perspective of history, it is clear that it is a significant part of Truman's personal legacy, so it belongs in his bio. Would we have seen that then? Not clear. So as has been said repeatedly, at this point it seems that if drones are to be discussed, the article about his terms in office is where it should be, and perhaps referred to here. But that might change with the passing of time, and I am not saying it will take 70 years. Tvoz/talk 05:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Tvoz, that's actually a very good point. Recentism is a very good partial explanation of how the article has evolved to look like this, but it is not and should not be used as a justification for keeping the article this way. --John (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not quite what I was saying. Tvoz/talk 06:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it looks to me like recentism is driving the impetus to include drone content here, rather than driving the view that it is irrelevant to the bio. Stuffing the article with whatever is currently in the news (or conservative blogs, or whatever form of infotainment amuses you) would be a good example of recentism. Allowing time for history to make these judgments before adding to the bio would be a way of avoiding recentism. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Stuffing the article with whatever is currently in the news (or conservative blogs, or whatever form of infotainment amuses you) I'm not aware that anyone has suggested that. What are you responding to here, or is this a red herring? If it's the latter, feel free to apologise and respond in an adult way to suggestions that have actually been made. --John (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a little exaggeration in my metaphor, but not every metaphor is a red herring. I think you're getting a little hypertensive about this whole thing, John. There are no angry mastodons here, so please, take a break, relax, and come back to it with a spirit of collaboration. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for acknowledging you were not serious. It's always a risk when you fool around and throw out "exaggerations in metaphor" when someone else is being serious. I was being serious. --John (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is it starting to seem like you are trying to pick a fight with me? I am perfectly serious about improving Misplaced Pages's articles, including this one. Of course when I say things like "whatever form of infotainment amuses you," I'm not being 100% serious in my rhetoric, as there is a little jest to that, isn't there? It's more a comment on the state of the news media than a jab at anyone here, though. No, John, the biggest difference I see between you and me is that I'm being calm and rational while you're stomping around demanding apologies from editors who have offered you no offense. That's not being serious, that's being rude. If you'd like to get back to the topic of where and how coverage of UCAVs/drones should be included in Misplaced Pages, then please, let's get back to that topic. The ACLU is decrying the (alleged) illegality of the CIA and DOD's "drone program", but they are not (to the best of my knowledge) implicating Barack Obama personally, just the CIA and SecDef. Now what were you saying about why the biography of Barack Obama is the best place on Misplaced Pages to talk about drones? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It baffles me why people are always coming here to put stuff into this biography that belong in Presidency of Barack Obama. RNealK (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in what you think are the differences between you and me. I am not interested in your feelings or in what you think is rude. I am here to discuss improving the article. If you wish to join the discussion it will be a lot more productive if you refrain from making rhetorical points that you turn out not to believe in. Feel free to get on with making points that are not rhetorical. The other stuff I will ignore, except that it makes me marginally less likely to take your points seriously. --John (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, John, so I suggest you either review WP:CIVIL or take a break from editing. And yes, I mean that with complete seriousness. When I said rhetoric I meant rhetoric, so you see, it would be literally impossible for anyone to "make points that are not rhetorical" because the whole process of coming here to use the talk page is a form of rhetoric. And where did I say I don't believe in something I had previously said? Please, point that out to me. You seem more interested in arguing with me than in improving Misplaced Pages. In my most recent post I made a valid argument against the inclusion of drones in this article, and you never even acknowledged it. Why should I take you seriously? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 13:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, wow, John. Way to be collaborative. RNealK (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the proposed mention of drones in this article

Guardian (added by John)

This source talks about the Obama administration, and the closest it comes to dealing with Barack Obama (the person) is the passage: Bellinger...said he believed had increased since because President Obama was unwilling to deal with the consequences of jailing suspected al-Qaida members. So I see very weak support for inclusion in the BLP article, stronger support for inclusion in the Presidency article. But go on. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Guardian (added by John)

This is from an opinion column, so weak as a reliable source, though he does at least give his sources and give a lot of direct quotes, so it's fairly strong as an opinion piece. Still, he talks more about Obama administration policy than Barack Obama the person. Remember, there are more people than Barack Obama involved in forming administration policy. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

BBC (added by John)

Are you even being serious with this one? This article mentions Barack Obama exactly once: "However, the number of drone attacks there has dramatically increased under President Barack Obama," and the mention is not central to the article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Economist (added by John)

This article, from the second paragraph, offers much better support of your position because it does at least talk about Barack Obama (the person) and his personal approach to making these decisions as president (in comparison to his predecessor). So here's a source worth talking about. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Economist --John (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is mostly about Grubbs and his animated graph, and by virtue of the topic of the graph mentions that drone strikes have increased under the Obama administration. Again, at best it is weak support for inclusion at the Presidency article (not the BLP). Even if we accept that the graph itself is a reliable source, it does not tie "drones" to "Barack Obama the person" in a biographical way. At best, the Obama administration. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

ACLU (added by Wilhelm)

The ACLU is pointing fingers at DOD, DOJ, State and CIA, but not at the White House, much less the President personally. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

PBS (added by Wilhelm)

This PBS article comes a little closer by tying the drone program to the Obama administration and the Bush administration, but just those two groups involve a lot of people (not just Barack Obama), though they did mention comments Obama made on The Daily Show. But prepare for disappointment before watching the video, because he wasn't actually talking about drones there, he was talking about closing Guantanamo. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

New York Times (added by Wilhelm)

NYT links drones to the CIA, not to Obama, who is barely mentioned in passing. You wanted to know what reliable sources are saying about drones. They're mostly talking about CIA and DOD, with mentions that the program was expanded under the Obama administration (which is hardly surprising since it only started when his immediate predecessor was in office). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

New York Times (added by Wilhelm)

Here is a NYT article on the flap over domestic surveillance drones with emphasis on their use by private entities and local government (e.g. a sheriff's office). Obama is never mentioned. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

...Obama's drone war...President Obama's increasing reliance on armed drones to kill terrorist suspects has sparked an international outcry and a fierce domestic debate about the government's assertion of its right to kill in secret BLP are required to mention notable controversy, how many more RS do we need to establish this fact? the article does not read, the USA Drone War or CIA Drone War, or White House Drone War, or Office of the President Drone War, it specifically mentions the man. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Still about the president's policy, not about the man. Frankly, it's incredible that you are unable to see the distinction. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's incredible that you keep banging on about that. Nearly the entire article is about his presidency and policies and this is no different. 120.192.185.135 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good argument for condensing and limiting coverage of the presidency here, not expanding it. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see that happen, actually. Tvoz/talk 19:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a good argument for limiting it nor should that happen. This isn't the article for Theodore Roosevelt. Barack Obama doesn't have anything else approaching the significance of his presidency. 120.192.185.135 (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how biographies work in an encyclopedia or anywhere else. If you have the fortitude to read, say, The Years of Lyndon Johnson the author doesn't get around to the Presidency until the fifth volume. A biography is a telling of somebody's life. We have other articles about the presidency and sub-topics from there, all linked together. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

regardless of what job one may hold, whenever a war is named after you, it should be included in the blp. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If you actually read the entire article, you quickly see that the "Obama's war" phrase is hyperbole to get readers. The article is a blog piece about the people who run the drones, not Obama himself. Nice try though. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

3-D printing gets Obama’s approval

My suggestion for the article: "Obama predicted that 3-D printing would bring manufacturing jobs flooding back into the United States. The 3-D printing centre in Cincinnati mentioned in Obama’s speech was partly bankrolled by the U.S. Department of Defense, which views the technology as a way to make highly specialized parts for military hardware. While Obama’s manufacturing revolution may turn out to be smaller than his speech implied, it’s possible that 3-D printing will launch an irreversible revolution in gun fabrication – which could also render moot the president’s attempts to legislate stricter gun controls." ref. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/3-d-printing-gets-obamas-approval-but-does-he-know-it-makes-guns/article8639920/

The current actuality of this is the article: Ban sought for guns made with 3-D printers after man successfully test fires one (ref. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ban-sought-in-us-for-firearms-made-with-3d-printers/article11732870/ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.168.56 (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Although 3D printing is a very important technological development, and the 3D printing of sidearms by private citizens (which hasn't happened yet, beyond a crude novelty) is perhaps an encyclopedic subject in its own right, there's no indication that the issue is significant enough, or closely related to the life and times of Obama, to include in this article. In other words, this stuff is best added to articles much more specific to those topics. In doing so, you'll have to watch WP:POV, original analysis, and use of unreliable sources like the speculation and conjecture in the Globe and Mail article. The speculation that there is conflict between Obama's supporting a new technology, and the possibility that the technology can be used to make weapons is, in fact, silly. By that logic Obama should not support the computer software industry because software, too, is part of gun manufacture. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

While I'm always interested in new technological developments, and this is a fascinating one, the day I would personally trust a firearm created by my home printer is a long way off. There's a fair bit of hype happening here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your history/definition of the Barack Obama page is inaccurate...

To Whom It Concerns;

I don't know who's responsible for the content on this page about Barack Obama, but it is inaccurate and misleading.

On the page, you claim that Obama is the first African American president. It should read that he's the first bi-racial president! His father was black, but his mother was white! There is no scientific evidence that the black gene is dominant. By listing him as the first African American president, you are doing a disservice to any future person, who is full African American and becomes president! Also, in my opinion, you yourselves come off as being racist for thinking the black gene is dominant by listing him as the first African American president, when he clearly is not.

Thank You;

Wayne White — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.82.66 (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see FAQ#Q2 as well as the archived discussions on this topic. Also note that term African American refers primarily to ancestry rather than race.--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"White House to brew house"?

Only The Guardian blog: , but is this in any way notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs on a biography of Obama.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, and like the blogger, I think it's great, but it really is trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(beer and sandwiches have proved to be quite important for some past political leaders...) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we'll wait until it proves to be important for this one. Tvoz/talk 20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

...and we thought UK politics was silly... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Gotta love The Onion. Tvoz/talk 20:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

what?! satire!? I had no idea. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

IRS, AP phone tap, Benghazi

Mainstream media is now covering the IRS targeting of groups under the label "Tea Party," as well as the revisions made to the Benghazi talking points and the U.S. DOJ's tapping of AP phone records. They now appear to be treating these as scandals. Is there a reason why there is no mention of any of these scandals in the Obama article? I am assuming it's due to the fact that these events have not yet unfolded to their entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejanochica (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There are several reasons why these things are not covered in this article, but the main reason would be that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Barack Obama. The IRS and the Justice Department are independent branches of government, and only right wing fringe crazies think Benghazi is a "scandal". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Categories: