Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:30, 16 March 2009

Click to manually purge the article's cache

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.
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 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

Template:Community article probation

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. Biography: Politics and Government 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).

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (2007-09-17). "On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-11). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880. Noam Cohen (2008-11-09). "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.

view · edit 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.

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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Special discussion pages Article probation, Incidents Historical diffs, Weight, Race

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Template:Pbneutral

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

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Religon
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#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)

Bad faith all around

Aftermath

Well it seems that WND ppl have finally given up, so are there any major changes or any new additions being considered? Personally, I advocate adding a couple of lines about Wright's influence in personal life (see above: : What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics.") While Wright is a controversial figure, that doesn't necessarily reflect him as a person, and I'm hoping someone can summarize it in a way that shows the real story of a man who had the moral support and guidance of his pastor on his way to bigger and better things. Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Obama give Wright that big a role in his autobiographies though? My impression was that most of the comment about Wright's influence was in response to the scandal that embroiled around him. Consider that his grandmother and mother are much better known for their role in his development, but this doesn't make it into this article either. If Wright is to be mentioned in this article, it's surely got to be to do with the scandal. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, like you said, that was then and not now. How would we resolve that against the fact that he later publicly rejected wright? The article currently reflects the rejection and shift away from Wright. Though, I wouldn't put anymore info on Wright past the line that is in the article now. This is mainly due to the fact that the article is written in Sumary Style which means we don't go in depth into each portion, but summarize the highlights and then leave the details to the daughter articles. If you read the portion on Wright in the personal section, you will see a link to not only the man himself, but also the controversy too. That is enough for the main article, no need to expand into a discourse into Obama's interactions with Wright. Brothejr (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wright had a rather large impact upon Obama's life. Attending Wright's sermons is what convinced Obama to become a Christian instead of just being "spiritual" and Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC and his Audacity of Hope book were inspired by a sermon from Wright. So one could argue that without Wright, Obama may not have had the meteoric rise he had following his primary victory in 2004. --Bobblehead 15:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Does Obama give Wright that big a role in his autobiographies though?" Considering, Obama chose the title of his book from the title of one of Wright's sermons, the answer seems clear. Bytebear (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with how Wright was handled back before the whole controversy exploded. --Bobblehead 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely worth mention is his reason for leaving his church of 20 years, the one in which he was baptized and married. Scribner (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's already in the article. Granted, it wasn't before the WND article, but it is mentioned now. --Bobblehead 16:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bobblehead, I was responding to your mention of not seeing a problem with the way Wright was handled before the controversy. Scribner (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant how Wright was handled in the article before the whole Wright controversy exploded in addition to why Obama left the church and cut Wright off. --Bobblehead 17:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, our confusion arose from the fact that there are now two controversies, one in which cast Wiki in a very negative light. This blatant omission in such a major article, deliberate or not, severely mars the integrity of Wiki. Anyway, I'm moving on. Hope everyone has a great weekend. Someone please move the sentence about Obama saying he wouldn't smoke in the White House...hardly a way to end the section about the POTUS. Scribner (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wright seems to be mentioned well in the article, he shouldn't be given too much weight. Good to see that things have cooled down around here. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The coverage of the controversy around Wright seems to be appropriately covered, but the overall coverage of Wright is a bit lacking, IMHO. As I mentioned above, Wright was what drew Obama into being Christian vs. just "spiritual" and Wright's sermon was the inspiration for the theme of Obama's 2004 DNC speech and the Audacity of Hope book. Both the conversion to Christianity and the speech/book are pivotal points in Obama's biography and to leave out Wright's role in those pivots leaves this article with holes. --Bobblehead 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm kinda torn. I think that if we can mention Obama's non-smoking efforts, we can mention his former pastor, who was a significant part of his life and of whom Obama always spoke well, until all Hades broke loose. However, I'd personally hate to be judged by my former rabbi, who shall we just say had a very inventive view of the Internal Revenue Code. Also, I hate to see WP give in under fire, makes the point if you raise a big enough stink, you can force WP to do stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are judging Obama by Wright's actions by mentioning how important Wright was to him, especially since we don't say what Wright said, just that Obama left the church because of some controversial statements by Wright. Wright is an important part of Obama's bio and ignoring him probably isn't the best approach to take. --Bobblehead 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Wright is biographically important to Obama's personal/religious development and deserves mention accordingly. Wright and the A More Perfect Union (speech) should also be briefly mentioned in the campaign section. All the campaign post-mortems have stated that the Wright controversy in spring 2008 was likely the campaign's greatest moment of peril; see this Politico story for example or page 68 ff. of the Evan Thomas "A Long Time Coming" book ("His advisors saw Jeremiah Wright as a true threat to Obama's candidacy."). Wasted Time R (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Then suggest a line or two and where it would go, then we can either work on it, or approve it, then throw it in. Brothejr (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"In March 2009, a number of news outlets began reporting on incindiary comments which Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, had made during sermons at his church. Public reaction to the revelation was mixed, and Evan Thomas described this time as "a true threat to Obama's candidacy". Obama responded by resigning from the church and by delivering a speech, A More Perfect Union, during which he distanced himself from Wright, and the controversy died down." Of course with appropriate refs, I've concentrated on language here--Wehwalt (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although the last phrase "and the controversy died down" sounds a bit subjective to me. Perhaps it could be worded differently or simply omitted. Bytebear (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I would try. The campaign section on the primaries is a bit off mark already; the Michigan/Florida decision really didn't make a difference, and the while the race was even on the popular vote metric, it wasn't on delegates, where Obama maintained a steady and crucial edge. I would rewrite the middle of that paragraph like this:

... The field narrowed to a contest between Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton after initial contests, with the race remaining close throughout the primary process but with Obama gaining a steady lead in pledged delegates due to better long-range planning, superior fundraising, dominant organizing in caucus states, and better exploitation of delegate allocation rules. The Jeremiah Wright controversy became the greatest threat to Obama's campaign during the primaries, to which Obama responded with his well-received "A More Perfect Union" speech. ...

1. Tumulty, Karen (2008-05-08). "The Five Mistakes Clinton Made". Time. Retrieved 2008-11-29.
2. Baker, Peter and Rutenberg, Jim (2008-06-08). "The Long Road to a Clinton Exit". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-11-29.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Smith, Ben (2008-12-11). "McCain pollster: Wright wouldn't have worked". The Politco. Retrieved 2009-03-12.
4. Thomas, Evan (2009). "A Long Time Coming". New York: PublicAffairs. pp. 68–74.

This gives a brief but good strategic analysis of why Obama beat Hillary, in addition to mentioning the Wright controversy. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the reader should be forced to click to learn what that was. I think it is OK to say what it was in the Obama article, either through my language or some other language. Otherwise the uninformed reader (recently returned from the Moon) is interruped by having to go look at what the controversy was.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, reading both entries, I think they would go good together. Basically, keep everything Wasted Time R wrote right up the end of the primary and then replace the portion about Wright with Wehwalt' entry, while keeping the ref's. That would make a nice addition. Brothejr (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just like peanut butter and jelly. Sounds good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right and I agree, things have to be explained at least at some basic level without clicking through. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good and we don't look like we're giving into the WND crazies valued contributers. Soxwon (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IF we are in agreement, could someone insert it? While I am an admin, with the article on lockdown, I don't want to insert my own (in part) text for appearances' sake.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Before we go shoving new, and potentially controversial, stuff into the article, let's give people some time to think about and comment on this. For a long time, we have had a gentleman's agreement here that we build a solid consensus before inserting anything significant. Hurried insertions have historically led to edit wars, and ultimately the article probation. I think we need to spend a lot more time over this. I think the suggested text includes too much election-related detail - certainly more than a summary style article should need. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the last point. Winning the Democratic nomination is one of the great achievements of Obama's career. Going into the race, Hillary was the strong favorite, with more name recognition, more establishment party support, higher poll numbers, and just as compelling a historical "first" associated with her. Yet Obama defeated her. How he did this is biographically relevant and deserves to be described. And as I said above, the existing text on this part of the campaign is misleading. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, how long is a "long time?" A week, a month, a year? Soxwon (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

When I said "election-related", I was referring specifically to the election with respect to Jeremiah Wright. In the end, Wright did not influence the result of the primary (or the election that followed it), so any mention of Wright should focus more on the 20-year relationship and not on the final few months of that relationship. Certainly this is not the case for the daughter articles about the primary and election, but definitely for this BLP. When I said "a lot more time", I meant a few days. I'm sure we could have an agreement with broad support before the end of the weekend. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In the end, Vic Wertz's shot to center field in the Polo Grounds didn't affect the 1954 World Series, but it and Mays' catch are still worth discussing in that article. The Wright affair is the closest the Obama Express came to getting derailed. I would put it in along the lines outlined above.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The mention of Wright in the campaign section is biographically relevant because it sets up his speech on race. Elections are crucibles; the character of a candidate is illustrated by how they respond to the crises that occur during them. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are fair comments, and I agree that "the Wright affair" was a pivotal moment in the primary campaign - it didn't change the result, but it did galvanize Obama into making an important and memorable speech. We must be careful not to use this as a way of characterizing Wright ("incendiary", etc.) without the highest quality sources, and we must keep it as brief as possible. I think my comments demonstrate the need for more discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Thomas book p. 68 says "For Obama, the fiery and vain reverend was a continuing source of vexation and personal pain." And says that Obama characterized Wright's remarks as "pretty incendiary" to a Newsweek reporter. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that there should be more about Obama's association with Wright, but I also agree with Scjessey that we should wait longer than two days to make a change like this to the article. However, if we put in more about Wright, I think we should also put in more on former terrorist William Ayers. According to his Misplaced Pages page, "During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose regarding Ayers' contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama, a matter that had been public knowledge in Chicago for years." Obama's article doesn't even contain the word, "Ayers."

Now even if this controversy may not be significant enough to put in this article, it just being a summary article and all, the lack of information on Ayers in this article has drawn the attention of FOXNews.com; they have an article about this (It also talks about the lack of info on Wright). According to the article, "users of the free online encyclopedia... deleted attempts to add Ayers' name to Obama's main entry."

I don't know if this is true or not; it wouldn't surprise me with all the argumentation above; but if so, this supports my view that we should add info on Ayers to the article, since other Wikipedians have tried to keep the references to him in. On the other hand, it could just be that those who wanted Ayers in this article were just as misguided as I, in which case, ignore this post. --STAR TREK enthusiast Open channel 13:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability isn't an equal, two-way street. That Obama figures as an important event in Ayers biography doesn't necessarily mean that Ayers carries the same weight in Obama's. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ayers is a whole different story from Wright, being much more minor in biographical significance and in effect on the 2008 campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read up on it, here or in the responsible press, the original claims were a hoax. When Misplaced Pages editors gang up to remove objectionable material from the encyclopedia we call that "consensus". At any rate, Ayers has been re-politicized again. People are still fighting the Obama/McCain election, and using Ayers as a smear on Obama. Elsewhere, the material has been added (and I removed it) from four other articles. The material is politically motivated, and I don't think we should play to that.Wikidemon (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Working version

{{Criticism of Barack Obama}} Is there any reason to create a skeleton version of a deleted article in article space redirected from template space, and transclude it here? That's kind of weird and it interferes with editing the talk page. I have doubts that anything good will come of this, but if you want to work on it why not do it in a sandbox? Wikidemon (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is "that's kind of weird" kind of like "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT?" Your "skeleton version" terminology also does not give due substance to the concept that the term "working version" does. Skeletons symbolize death, while "working" here symbolizes growth and development. I don't understand how at all a transcluded template could "interfere with editing the talk page." There are cases where transclusion actually assists talk page discussion; for example see WP:OBT. "If you want do it in a sandbox" sounds a lot like "go do it somewhere else," or maybe even "go sit in the back of the bus." If by "if you want to work on it" you mean to indicate that what I want is relevant here (it actually is), then I'll respectfully just say that I "want" to do it here. Here is called a "talk page" and here is where people talk about the subject. The relevant "Talk:Criticism of" article was deleted with the article itself, so that leaves here. Thanks for your interest, and again, the working version is open for editing (not whitewashing, which would be sort of ironic). -Stevertigo 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this again from the talk page - you are at 2RR or 3RR here so don't add it again. Please review Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation as it applies to your repeated re-insertion of unsourced content here, and WP:CIVIL regarding the new essay you have created for the occasion to accuse editors you disagree with of unprincipled edits. Discussions, and pages, that start with accusations of "whitewashing" don't seem to be productive. I'm probably going to nominate the sub-page and template for speedy deletion - if you think they should not be please explain why. Complaining about me is not going to convince me otherwise.Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really been paying too much attention to this article, and I've gotten annoyed at this because of the other stuff that exists of this type (i.e. Criticism of foo articles in general), but looking at the skeleton that's been created, it appears that everything that would be included on that page is already covered in Misplaced Pages and creating one article out of all of the negative comments doesn't appear to meet NPOV expectations. Why are we creating a new page with duplicate information? SDY (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen an answer, so I have nominated the article for (non-speedy) deletion here. Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The new essay by stevevertigo WIKIPEDIA:I just don't like it is MfD'd here

Obama's Citizenship Has Not Been Proven and Is Not a Trivial Matter.

Obama , Sr. article

Barack Obama, Sr. is now being targetted with seriously POV text about Obama's citizenship "controversy" and some inappropriate external links; the stated reason for adding the content there is because it can't be added to this article. --Bonadea (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for semiprotection. Tvoz/talk 22:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But it was turned down, because there wasn't "enough" recent vandalism. 66 edits in the last month yielding 2 substantive changes and 3 or 4 minor edits that stuck seems like a lot of vandalism and reverting to me, but so be it. More eyes on the page would be appreciated. Tvoz/talk 20:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Retaking of oath

I just added the fact that the oath was taken twice (well, once correctly) by Obama, and it was summarily deleted. Why? Is this not true? The fact is, he really didnt take the full and complete oath the 20th. This is important informaiton that received a good deal of news coverage that warrents mention. --Jlamro (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlamro (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC) --Jlamro (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already been covered here, but you're saying "the fact is" he didn't take the oath correctly. That needs a reliable source, and also proof of notability. Even if it were true that the oath wasn't legal (and that meant something in the grand scheme of things), you'd need to show why it is notable enough to deserve a mention in a bio this large. Dayewalker (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is trivial. It is covered in the appropriate article.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories policy inconsistent

We have a section on the conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks in the main article about the attack. This is a fringe theory. It is hypocritical to encourage one there but not allow one on here--Rsjmsb (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. This is a biography of a living person written in summary style, but the 9/11 attacks article is about an event. The rules and guidelines differ. Furthermore, the fringe theories on Obama get their very own article to play in. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But yeah, what Scjessey said. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict X2 - addressed to original poster) I think you're thinking of it as "inconsistent" - nobody is being hypocritical. Occasionally a fringe theory, joke, hoax, misunderstanding, etc., is so notable and well known, it becomes associated with the event itself. The Elvis Presley article probably has some mention of all the kooky things his fans do, and modern day Elvis sightings, which is pretty fringe. Whether or not that's reasonable with respect to 9/11 conspiracy theories is a matter for the 9/11 article. Sometimes a different group of editors on a different subject makes a different decision. That doesn't necessarily make one right and one wrong. Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture not used in article

Occasionally it happens that well-meaning editors accidentally remove a featured picture from a relevant article, not realizing that it's among the site's best images. Normally I'd just replace it with an edit summary, but since this is such a high traffic page it seems better to post here. Is there any reason Misplaced Pages's best portrait of Obama isn't used in the main Obama article? Durova 18:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that it is a good image, however, the image currently displayed is the official presidential portrait taken of the president right before taking office. World (talk • contributions) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you can't use the 2006 image somewhere in the article. It doesn't need to be the infobox image. Put it after or maybe replace File:Flickr Obama Springfield 01.jpg (since it's a somewhat low-quality image). I'll also note that while there's probably a preference for using official presidential portraits for US President articles' infoboxes, it's certainly not set in stone (I don't see a style guide for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Presidents anyway). The 2006 image might be appropriate for the infobox yet, while moving the official portrait down to the "Presidency" section. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The official portrait of a president is by far the most recognisable picture of them that will ever be produced. It would be counterintuitive at best to use a different picture. The trouble is all of the other pictures show Obama doing something. Unless it is added – and I don't really see where – then there's not really a case for the picture. I seem to remember reading once somewhere about featured pictures and how the criteria for things like flowers are really high because so many people take good pictures of them. Well Obama may come under that category too. I think this picture is featured in terms of encyclopedicity because it shows a facet to his oratory style, and that's a detail too fine for his main article to be covered in pictures of it. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your analysis of why the image is an FP, nor how it's only relevant in the context of a discussion of Obama's oratory style. While I agree, an official presidential portrait is likely to be the best-recognized portrait of said person, and thus it's probably not appropriate to replace the infobox image under normal circumstances, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to consider it; both considering the extremely high quality of the 2006 portrait (see its FPC for some good arguments) and the high level of media coverage of this last election. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting replacing the lead image. The question is why, with a featured picture as an informal portrait, this remains unused while several inferior snapshots are on the page. Is there a particular reason a featured picture is not used anywhere on the main biography of the current United States president? Durova 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, on second thoughts, the picture of Obama with the presidents at the end doesn't really illustrate anything except a barely notable photocall. Perhaps the featured picture would better describe his cultural and political image here? Bigbluefish (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

While this may be a featured picture, I'd rather not have a picture where he looks pissed as the main image. Just because an image is featured does not mean it needs to be used in this article. Plus, besides the main image, where could this image really be used? Pictures have to also augment the article, illustrating a point. How would this image better augment the article? What point would this image illustrate? What can the readers learn from it? Brothejr (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh... did you actually read the post immediately above yours? Bigbluefish (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrolling down the page, there are many images of lesser photographic quality that are used in supplemental positions. Is there a reason this cannot find a place among them, perhaps to illustrate President Obama's years as a senator. It would seem to be fitting to use the best quality illustrations available at this important featured article, especially since it was taken by one of our own Misplaced Pages volunteers. Durova 17:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If a featured photograph better illustrates a point in the article, then yes insert it. However, just because a photograph is featured does not mean it has to be inserted. Brothejr (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of the image would be good, agreed. Like the dramatic lighting, the clarity and crispness of detail, and the clear image of the article subject (Obama). I also agree the presidential portrait should lead.ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to insert that photo, then here's the question: what point does that photo illustrate? What significance does it have with this main bio? Brothejr (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's senatorial career has been suggeted; that's the period this comes from. Usually I stay away from these political articles because the discussions get so thorny. But to demonstrate evenhandedness how about this? There's a public domain photograph of John McCain from shortly after his release from being a POW. I restore historic images; find a place for the Obama FP at this article and I'll restore the McCain photo and submit that for featured picture candidacy. The important thing here is quality illustration, not ideology. With respect, Durova 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about quality of the photographs. What I am asking is what is this photo illustrating? Just because a photo is a featured photo does not mean it has to be included or it has to replace a lesser photo that had more significance and meaning to the article. Also, while it may have been taking during his senatorial career, it highlights nothing of his senatorial career and makes no distinction between his pre-state career, state career, presidential run, or presidency. So again, what is this photo illustrating? Brothejr (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a question I already answered twice. Rather than explain it a third time, since text descriptions appear not to communicate the idea effectively, you can now see it at the section about his senatorial career. Thank you for your commitment to illustration, Brothejr. The 'picture of the day' on display at your user page was one of my restorations. Best regards, Durova 17:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, you still have not give a sufficient reason for the addition of the image and the image does not better illustrate the section, so I have reverted your addition. Why, not answer the question straight. I have read your last posts and you have not answered that same question. How does that image better explain Obama's time in the senate? You keep saying its a featured image and was takedn during the time he was in the senate. That says very little about why we should include it. Again (With maybe a little more then a sentence or two), please explain why you think that image would better improve the article and please explain why that image should be in that section. Also, please explain how that image would better illustrate that section to the reader. Brothejr (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't make the article worse, let it flow, man. That's what we should work on; only revert edits that make an article worse, not those that don't make it better. Sceptre 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, I've come across many articles, where editors who are only really focused on images, upload an image and add them to the article because they say it looks better, soon the article become festooned with all sorts of cool looking images. When, over all, they add nothing to the article. The same thing is being done here. The original was better for the article as it better illustrated the section. While the only reason for the addition of this image is because it is a featured image. Plain and simple. It does not illustrate his time in the senate. It does not illustrate him better. It's just a featured photograph. Brothejr (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages works in the way that you need a reason for deleting content, not for adding content. Be bold exists for a reason. Sceptre 19:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Be Bold also means stating the reason why you think the image better improves the article. Stating that is a featured image is not a reason. Plus, be bold does not mean do whatever you want to do either. Brothejr (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The way I'm reading it, it doesn't. BB allows editors to make any edit they want for whatever reason, and you don't need to state it. Our guidelines concerning reverting edits, however, do require you to give a good reason to revert a good-faith edit. Sceptre 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And the strange thing is, is that I not only did in the summary, but I also posted a comment here. However, not all things done under Be Bold is constructive. Be Bold has a tendency to be used by editors to do whatever they want and insert whatever they want. Sometimes it is even more bolder to hold back the edit and start a discussion before editing. Brothejr (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

←While you have a point about articles with an enormous number of images and when a particular image is of dubious quality, I think this image's FP status can be considered special circumstances. We don't need to use the FP, but why the heck shouldn't we? —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, there are no special circumstances because it is a featured image. It still has to go through the same thing as every other image no matter what the quality of the image is. Brothejr (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we can agree to disagree on that, I suppose. As to the image's relevance, as suggested above, it does somewhat illustrate Obama's oratory style which (correct me if I'm wrong) has played a significant role in his campaign and career. It illustrates a particular stage in Obama's life. It can be used to link to a subarticle which better discusses those things the image describes (e.g., Obama's public image), thus freeing up space taken by summary ("a picture is worth a thousand words", after all). Is there an enormous need to include this picture? No, I suppose not. But I don't see the particular need to exclude it either. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if it is being used for his oratory skill, where in the image does it suggest that he is speaking to a crowd? Brothejr (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what the caption is for Brothejr. How about using this one to replace the one down in the Political positions section? The reason why he was giving the speech was to support Proposition 87 which would have taxed oil companies in California to pay for investment in alternative energy. The one that is currently in the section is from a campaign stop. --Bobblehead 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note the image in question is File:ObamaAbingtonPA.JPG. I think we could use the FP in addition to that image, since the section is relatively devoid of images. Most of the other sections have two images or more. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I can easily get behind File:ObamaAbingtonPA.JPG because it really shows his oratory skills much better then the other image. I am not against featured images, but saying it is a featured image does not give it more or less weight then any other image. Brothejr (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to replace the campaign stop image just because the featured picture is actually Obama making a speech specifically for a political position and the other is a general campaign stop. We also already have 4 images of Obama at speeches. Just for variety sake, if we put in another speech image, I'd like to see it replace one rather than add one. --Bobblehead 19:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(to Brothejr) I disagree with that; at the very least, from the standpoint that the FP is more representative of Obama's public image. IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong), Obama was very fond of the "open collar" look during his campaign- a look which served to make him less like a stuffy politician and more like someone who would "get things done".

(to Bobblehead) Good point about how many speech images we have here, but I do think the inclusion of the Obama-Biden campaign logo, etc. in an image of him campaigning is at least significant to helping establish the context. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(To Mendaliv) That may be, but looking at the image and remove the caption: is he giving a speech? Is he pissed off? Is he making a face? Is he just posing? While the image may be of high quality, if it needs a caption to explain what the image is about, then it is not the right image for the article. To better an article, the image at the very least must be able to stand alone without a caption and still inform the reader.

You know, I was looking through Wikicommons and saw all sorts of cool images in there that we could either replace some images or add to the article. Plus, looking at the other language Wikipedias there are also some cool images in each of them too. Maybe we can bring some images from those two sources over here if they are not already and add/replace images to the article. I've seen all sorts of images that help better illustrate both the sections and the article, and be of much higher quality. Brothejr (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a fine image, but it isn't very representative of the section it is in. If the image were in the campaign section it would be fine, but a general campaign speech isn't as representative as an image of him doing something related to a political position. --Bobblehead 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related topic.. Why aren't we using the picture to the right in the campaign section. There's some clutter in the image, but with some cropping the image would be a lot better than the grainy photo we have in the section now. --Bobblehead 20:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, a featured picture portrait of Barack Obama has been removed from the Barack Obama article despite two prior explanations that it comes from his term as a senator and is therefore encyclopedic at the section about his senatorial career, with the following edit summary:

(Reverted to revision 277442217 by Cenarium; Reverting back to orgional image, as no reason has been given for image replacement. . (TW))

Although this is not intended as a boast, it probably is worth mentioning that I have contributed 10.5% of Misplaced Pages's featured pictures. Normally it would be a thoroughly uncontroversial edit to use a featured picture at the article of its primary relevance. Having already stated its relevance twice, then demonstrated its relevance, it is very odd to get reverted with an automated tool in this way. Durova 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

While the photo was taken while Obama was a Senator, it's not really related to his duties as a Senator. That's why I'm thinking it's better placed down in the Political positions section. --Bobblehead 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) (To Durova) I got to tell you, I don't care whether an editor has contributed all the featured images or just one. I don't care if they do or don't like automatic tools. (Though I've always wanted to become a lumberjack!) I don't care if they like spam or not. However, every editor has to edit the same way. Every image needs to better explain the article on it's own without a caption and while that image is a sweet looking image, it does not stand on it's own. There are a variety of images that better augment the article. Heck, there might even be a few in there that might be worthy as a featured image. (On an aside, Misplaced Pages is not just about images. Everything in the article has to come together to better inform the reader and images are tools to better achieve that. Too many images or images that do not better augment an article only serve to distract the reader and hinder the article.) Brothejr (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The reversion rationale is inaccurate. It claimed no explanation for the relevance had been made, not that you disagreed with the one which had in fact been provided repeatedly. Durova 22:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If the problem is that there are too many pictures of him as a senator, how about using it to illustrate his cultural and political image in place of the one with the presidents? I don't see much to do with his cultural and political image in standing in lines with former presidents. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that the image does not add anything to the article. If you remove all the captions and secondary information and just look at the photo, can you tell if he is giving a speech? Is he pissed? Is he making faces? Is he even a senator in that photo. Plus, we have already a bunch of photos of him giving speeches. The main reason for the editor adding that photo is that it is a feature image. Nothing else. Brothejr (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, pull the pole out of your ass and stop edit warring. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the picture and there is no harm in including the picture in this article. --Bobblehead 23:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If the problem is that there are too many images in an article, the usual solution is to retain the relevant featured picture and remove some other image. We don't need to question whether Barack Obama was a senator in 2006. Durova 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Aside from the time relationship, there isn't anything tying the image to Obama's duties as a Senator. He was at the rally as a "famous" supporter of the proposition who just happened to be a Senator. That's why I moved it to the PP section. --Bobblehead 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can this please be fully discussed here FIRST and then applied after consensus is reached - right now what is happening with moving the image around, in and out etc. is an edit war and has gone past 3RR. Mfield (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; very good suggestion. Durova 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the image is A) that this is a featured picture and thus "must" be in the article. Yet, if it was not a featured image, it would not have been included in the article. B) The picture does not really stand on its own. There are many and many other pictures which can stand on their own and are of featured image quality, and honestly portray him a little bit better (I.E. not looking pissed off!). I'm not too happy that someone can walk in here say, this is a feature image and has to be in the article and then just add the image in. I've seen it done way too much and articles quickly turn into an image fests. Brothejr (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And what is wrong with including an image that appears to show Obama pissed off? This article is not supposed to be a propaganda piece for Obama and there is no requirement that the images only "portray him a little better". I also don't see anywhere that anyone is saying the picture has to be included in the article, just that your reasons for excluding them are pretty flimsy. --Bobblehead 00:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is asserting quite what Brothejr claims. What I asked was why, with a featured picture available, it was not in use. It is standard practice at Misplaced Pages to use a featured picture at the article where it is most relevant. Normally featured pictures do get preferential treatment because featured pictures have been recognized by consensus for their superior technical and esthetic quality and encyclopedic value. Is there some specific reason for deviating from that normal practice at one of the site's highest traffic pages? Durova 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to just throw a random shot to an essay and some humor. That's all. SDY (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much; that's delightful. :) Durova 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yea it is so delightful! I see that image experts and photo geeks will always get their way over editors worried about the over all article. Basically what I have been saying is that while the image may be featured, it really does not add anything to the article. Finally, and I am done with this issue: an image should add and augment the article, it should be able to stand on it's own without any captions or help, and lastly I'd rather have a low res image that actually shows someone doing something, then a high res photoshopped and cropped, photo that of a person that could be of anything. Just so you know, if a better picture is found, then that image is getting replaced. 08:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —The preceding comment was added by Brothejr (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Since every attempt to engage with you on your comments has just resulted in a restatement of your initial premise, your belligerent attitude does nothing for your case against the issue. I'm glad that you are at least moving on from the issue, and of course you're absolutely right about the future of the image. I don't think anyone would disagree with you there. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, criterion 7 of Misplaced Pages:Featured picture criteria and criterion 3 of Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria deal specifically with image captioning. Good captions are a requirement at both processes. Durova 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Campaign Finance

Under the CAMPAIGN heading the article mentions that President Obama did not accept public financing of his General Election Campaign. Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention that he made a pledge during the Primary Campaign that (gave the appearance) of agreeing to accept Public Financing? Before this is dismissed as a "trivial" issue, it is just this and other "trivial" issues that informed the vote of a good number of citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerusalyim (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd have a point if he made a pledge, he did not.--DemocraplypseNow (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've defended Barack Obama against some ridiculously spurious claims and puerile vandalism at Wiki and elsewhere, but I have to admit I remember this, during the primaries, and his being called on it from several quarters. From The New York Times: "Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part (in public financing) if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, 'If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.'" To me, it sounded like this addition was emphasis to his "yes," but others have interpreted this as de-emphasis. Yes means yes, no?

In any event, that was a pledge—the very purpose of that questionnaire was to determine the candidates' pledges. Yet after Obama's lawyers met with McCain's lawyers with regard to this issue, the two candidates never did so much as meet to discuss it themselves. Obama campaign general counsel Robert Bauer said of the failure to meet over the issue, “It became clear to me that there wasn’t any basis for future discussion.” I find little defensible about McCain's campaign, and the mistruths and missteps on his side were constant and utterly stultifying. I don't doubt that McCain was telegraphed as intractable. Yet it seems to me that "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee" should reasonably have been expected to play out mano a mano, ultimate agreement or no. For a senator, "I" still means one person—them—and among colleagues, albeit opponents, aggressive pursuit has got to mean more than one meeting between underlings.

I'm not playing devil's advocate here; while we have a great many more important issues on the table, I am concerned about how future elections will play out as this recession abates if we can't seriously and sincerely address campaign finance reform. I think a mention in Obama's main article would probably be giving the issue undue weight, but I should think that with a few additional legitimate sources and a tightly-written paragraph, it is relevant to one or more of the articles about the primaries and general election. The shift away from public financing is, in the context of elections and campaigns, one of the major stories of the past decade and a half. Every four years the media sneers and harrumphs about it for a couple months but then completely ignores it again until the next cycle, when it's too late to move the ball down the field. This cycle the richest candidate was the one from modest means with the $5 pledges. Next time it may be an entirely different scenario. (Uh, anybody remember that ol' populist ranch hand George W. Bush?) The whole topic deserves more thorough coverage than it's currently getting in any one media source, including Misplaced Pages. There are citations about this going back to billionaire heir Steve Forbes; editors with the time and inclination (and free of anti-Obama rabble rousing) should set to compiling them for a better article someplace here, perhaps Campaign finance in the United States or a spinoff article. Abrazame (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting discourse if a little off-topic. This is not a political article, and what's more there is no editorial decision on Misplaced Pages that should be based on influencing political elections or the "public interest". This article is for what the world currently remembers Obama for historically, and his financing pledge didn't even get that much play at the time of the election, and that given when character assassination was clearly a big part in the campaign against him. You're welcome to expand the campaign finance article, but just because a POV about the subject is widespread does not necessarily mean there should be a POV fork of it. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW: Obama prays with five evangelical pastors

Which, according to NY Times, include Moss, Jr. , T.D. Jakes , Kirbyjon H. Caldwell , Jim Wallis and Joel C. Hunter . ↜Just me, here, now … 01:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel this belongs in the article? If yes, why? SMP0328. (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Although it's true that not everybody around here is curious about religion in general or even Obama's in particular, some of us contributors await news of which denomination or at least branch of Christianity Obama aligns with post-Trinity (see here). So a report from the NYT that he has sought pastoral counsel from a number of Evangelical Protestants, although still not definitive, is at least interesting; but I myself think we should hold off at least for the time being on specifying Obama anything other than "Christian". ↜Just me, here, now … 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The article in no way indicates that he's using these five pastors as samplers for their faiths. It does say that he talks to them for input on the religious aspects of policy, and sometimes prays with them. I see nothing particularly worthy of inclusion here; there may be enough for a 'Obama does consult religious leaders for input about the theological aspects of policy at times' type line in the presidency article. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite right! --

President Obama has been without a pastor or a home church ever since he cut his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. in the heat of the presidential campaign. But he has quietly cultivated a handful of evangelical pastors for private prayer sessions.----LAURIE GOODSTEIN (NYT)

but supremely obliquely implies anything much pastoral is going on tween these preachers and the Prez. ↜Just me, here, now … 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Alone, this isn't notable. It might be notable if its related to why Obama made a particular decision. SMP0328. (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm speaking to O's religious identity (eg the article's infobox currently says, "Religion: Christian,<footnote> former member of United Church of Christ<footnotes>"). ↜Just me, here, now … 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also FWIW -- one of these pastors has a very indirect connnection with Trinity: Otis Moss, Jr.'s son Otis Moss III, appears to be the current pastor at Trinity. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Party identification called Socialist?

Please purge when reverting vandalism

This is a response to the above section, but it's important enough to be broken out on its own.

To put it as bluntly as possible, this is currently one of our most visible articles, and one of our most contentious articles, and is likely to be both through late January 2013 at the least. It isn't acceptable for vandalism to stick around any longer than it has to, but unfortunately it can stick around for a long while indeed. Even if the article is reverted immediately, it's possible that casual readers (that's most of them, and they number in the millions) can be served a cached version of the article with the vandalism intact. Even worse, it's possible for search engines to index the bad version (it has already happened, on this article); now tens of millions of people can see the vandalism if they happen to do a web search on the string "Barack Obama".

If you watch the article and revert vandalism on it, please also purge the article afterward. That makes it much less likely that the vandalized article will be seen by anyone. While TKD's advice above is fine, we should not have to tell anyone to clear their browser cache, because we should be taking steps to keep the bad version out of browser caches in the first place.

Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A reader's browser cache isn't going to be affected by our purging our cache, so what good would that do?ThuranX (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not yours, the page's; WP:PURGE. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, if the vandalized page is purged quickly enough, it will never make it into people's browser caches. If it's not purged quickly enough, then it might get cached by ordinary viewers. Moreover, they aren't going to think about the technical details of why the page looks vandalized - if they do, great; most won't - but just remember that it was. Purging our cached version means not having to worry about caches elsewhere, whether that's browser caches, search engine caches, mirrors, etc. It's preventive maintenance, basically. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

When you edit the page, the server cache is invalidated for everyone - no purge required. If everything works properly.  — Mike.lifeguard |  13:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We could add a convenient "purge main article" link to this talk page, or something like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Added one using {{purge}}. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:56, 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)

And if new users want their opinions accepted, read about our

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)

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)

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)

• 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