Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:34, 4 June 2009

Click to manually purge the article's cache

Template:Community article probation

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.

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.

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.

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). Template:USP-Article United States: Presidential elections Low‑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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. 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 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 Top‑importance 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 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. Hawaii Mid‑importance 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. Chicago Top‑importance 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. Template:WikiProject Columbia University Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indonesia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia 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 Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). 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 Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 Template:WPCD-People

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. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help) 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. Mark Coleman (March 10, 2009). "Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims". The Daily Telegraph.

	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

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.

See Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox re. Presidency section

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

I've moved the proposal to the main page of the Sandbox, but per my comment on the talk page, left it there as well for User:CouldOughta to delete. I've made a couple of edits to the proposal (after moving it to the sandbox in the version that existed there and had only been given minor edits by the aforementioned editor). I do have a couple of issues with a word here and there, which I will take up on that talk page in the near future. In the meantime, I would invite the editors of this page to visit that sandbox and weigh in. As with this article, please explain each significant edit there in an Edit summary and discuss any major issues on the talk page. Abrazame (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I am not sure why this is necessary. The text in the sandbox is largely what is in the Obama articles already, but devoid of any neutrality. Can someone help me understand why we wouldn't just discuss these thinks on the talk page of the relevant Obama article, reach consensus (or not) and move on with the edits? We seem to be creating more work and complication, where less complication seems to be the better course. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox was the brainchild of administrator User:Bigtimepeace, setup in order to work on significant article improvements (like a completely overhauled Presidency of... section) without it getting lost in the tangled mess here. It was discussed at length a couple of weeks ago and attracted support. It is my understanding that once the section has been written and polished up, it will get introduced here for the usual consensus-seeking discussion that may or may not lead to its addition to the article. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not sure what you mean by "devoid of any neutrality". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a procedural question. If we're going to discuss refinements to the Presidency section that we are working out on the main page of the Sandbox, should we move the discussion to the talk page of the Sandbox? I think that makes sense, but if we do so, we should make note here that we're discussing the Presidency section there. At the moment we have two topics going on in this discussion, QueenofBattle questioning the need for the Sandbox, and also questioning the text being refined there ("devoid of any neutrality"). Why don't we debate the neutrality/quality of the edits on the talk page of the Sandbox for now, to let us try it out? That may well answer QueenofBattle's other question as well. CouldOughta (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I like CouldOughta's suggestion. I am afraid my feeble mind has problems multitasking. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Obama discovers an American intelligence agency at Five Guys

Relevancy

Both as an inclusionist, as well as a disinterested observer (I didn't add the text, I merely cleaned up someone else's addition), I question this edit: . Rather than just proclaim something "irrelevant", let's have a discussion here - particularly based on this page's protection status. The data entered was:

• properly cited (more sources could be added, but that would be a case of making a WP:POINT, and is not needed)
• notable (the section discusses 1st 100 day approval numbers - comparisons of which were vice the last two Presidents were published by a number of sources)

Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(out of sequence)First, I think you have the wrong link above. The one you have relates to my questioning why we need another sandbox section for the Obama articles. I think the one you wanted was my edit removing the comparision of Obama's approval ratings after his first 100 days to other presidents? I'll weigh in on that below, in sequence. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the content again, without discussion (see article history). Let's discuss this rationally, please. Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact two different editors rmved it should give you an idea that it is in fact irrelevant. Soxwon (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, on pages with as much dispute as this article's, that two editors made a similar edit is not compelling. Perhaps you or the other editor could explain your reasoning, and we could get some other comments? I do believe the entry was both properly sourced and notable, as I listed in the bullet points, above. Furthermore, the text being removed is on-point to the paragraph. I can't see the lack of relevancy. Please explain. Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I do believe this edit violates the terms of the probation of this article. Please reconsider, and consider self-reverting. Thank you. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I really can't see how the approval rating of previous presidents relates to Barak Obama as a person. It relates to his presidency but not to his biography. Soxwon (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. Historically, presidents have often been compared by contrasting their performances in their first 100 days in office. It would seem, therefore, that comparing polling data for this period is relevant (particularly as the data received widespread mainstream media coverage). That being said, I do believe that the entire paragraph is in the wrong section. Perhaps this is something that should be proposed here instead? Whatever happens, edit warring over this paragraph is completely unacceptable (and that includes tag-team edit warring, folks). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your bad faith assumption and personal attack doesn't help your argument Scjessey. Comparing approval ratings is again something that relates to his presidency, not to his personal status. Previous president's approval ratings have as much room in this article as Ayers. Soxwon (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What "bad faith assumption and personal attack" are you referring to? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The accusation of tag-team edit warring? Plz, that is hardly an assumption of good faith. Soxwon (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not an accusation of bad faith (or a personal attack). You continued someone else's edit war, which is my definition of tag-team edit warring. Sorry if you don't like it, but the edit history corroborates it. Any edit warring is bad, and picking up where someone else's edit warring left off is inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevancy and importance / weight both seem slight. It might make sense to include a little polling data in the article, but polling data at any given moment in an administration is not that important to the overall sweep of the career. We don't put in Thomas Jefferson's bio how well liked he was at each stage among different constituencies. Comparing Obama to Bush and Clinton is a context free factoid. Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As the guy who was the first to make the edit on the basis of irrelevancy, let me say that Wikidemon sums up my point exactly. I don't understand the point of the comparison? Is it to suggest that Obama is better than Bush or Clinton? More popular? Both Bush and Clinton got a lower percentage of the vote and yet had approval ratings some 15-20 points higher than their electoral victories. Obama got 53-ish% of the vote, and had a 65% approval rating; a net gain of only 12%. Relevant? Hell, I don't know, but it is as interesting as a comparision to the raw approval ratings. How about compared to Kennedy, or Reagan, or Johnson? QueenofBattle (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I see this as a little too nit picky. Like QueenofBattle said above, why stop at just comparing Obama with Clinton and Bush, why not include all the previous presidents too? I think trying to compare his popularity against past presidents popularity is a little too much information even if it is cited. The section/paragraph can easily stand on its own without that little factoid at the end. Brothejr (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Brother, QoB, and Wikidemon. Were this to assert that 'Obama had the highest approval rating after 100 days of any president since the 100 days period became an artificial media created yardstick of effectiveness', then I could see it being relevant to the article, as an indicator of overwhelming popularity, and could be tied to his wide popularity, etc., etc. However, to cherry pick the last two isn't saying all that much. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The first-hundred-days metric does not seem to be currently factored in at the United States Presidential approval rating article. If such an early comparison is reasonable or really says anything (and I'm not sure that it is/does), that seems a far better place to add information comparing the approval ratings of presidents at the 100-days point than a biography article, particularly one as necessarily brief as those here at Wiki. Unsurprisingly, while QueenofBattle finds a negative way to frame it, I would say that it is a fairly logical conclusion that a president who won with a larger percentage of the vote would have a higher approval rating at the beginning of his presidency. If that weren't the case, that might be worth taking the space to point out, in service of an explanation as to why. As it is, it doesn't materially add to the understanding of the man, much less his young presidency, or the public's acceptance of him (which is higher than you'd guess if you'd only read the archives of this page). Abrazame (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How about we keep to trying to improve the article, rather than trying to pick a fight by commenting on other editors with comments like "Unsurprisingly, while QueenofBattle finds a negative way to frame it..."? If you want to make comments about me, here is my talk page. You can square up there if it'll make you feel better, but should pipe down here. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Presidency Section

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

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

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

Birth

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

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

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

Army

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

Even if he didn't, it would be something worth mentioning since as far as I know almost all (if not all?) presidents did. 93.33.230.172 (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Top-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Top-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class Indonesia articles
• Mid-importance Indonesia articles
• WikiProject Indonesia articles
• FA-Class Africa articles
• Low-importance Africa articles
• FA-Class Kenya articles
• Low-importance Kenya articles
• WikiProject Kenya articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• 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