Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:26, 23 May 2011

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

	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.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 18, 2004 Today's featured article Main Page January 23, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 26, 2007 Featured article review Kept April 15, 2008 Featured article review Kept September 16, 2008 Featured article review Kept November 4, 2008 Today's featured article Main Page December 2, 2008 Featured article review Kept March 10, 2009 Featured article review Kept March 16, 2010 Featured article review Kept 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

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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: District of Columbia / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (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. United States Presidents Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. 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 High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Top‑importance 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 Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-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. [REDACTED] African diaspora Mid‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Kenya Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Template:WPCD-People

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

Template:Community article probation

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 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

First African American

Criticisms in the Intro?

I'm a staunch Democrat and Obama supporter, but it's fair to say that's he received a fair share of criticism (we only have to look at approval polls to realize that). I think this should be in the intro - otherwise the article looks too biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.212.212 (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, almost all opinion polls for Obama the man (what this article is about) are favorable. What little legitimate criticism there has been (and by "legitimate" I am referring to the stuff which isn't just partisan garbage from the right) has been directed toward his presidency (which is a separate article). Putting that kind of criticism (such as it is) into this article's intro would fall foul of WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Also please see FAQ #4-7 at the top of this page regarding the conclusions the community has reached on this question and why. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. His approval ratings are in the 40's like Bush's, and your argument that the article is about the man instead of the president is laughable, and has a liberal bias. How old are you? I saddens me that you are in charge of editing this article. I see why it has such a liberal bias.75.69.20.8 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that in addition to having to resort to personal attacks, you have your facts wrong:

"AP/GfK poll shows that not only are Obama’s approval ratings remaining steady at 53%, but an incredible 84% said that the president is a very likeable person. Obama’s job approval rating is still at 53% which is where it has been since January. Obama’s personal approval rating was 59%, which is a four point increase since November. A majority of Americans (50%) believe that Obama should be reelected." (source)

-- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

" A majority of Americans (50%) believe that". No, that is only half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.145.7 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Gallup daily tracking poll has shown Obama below 50% for a very long time. And again, I will point out that Barack Obama would merit an article about 1/3 this long if he had not been elected president. He would be a one-term senator from Illinois and after the results of the 2010 election, with Mark Kirk as the new senator, Obama would probably be an instructor at a law school right now. Being president is what makes him this notable, and the majority of the article mainspace is about his presidential campaign and his presidency. Therefore some space must be devoted to notable criticism of his actions as president. You can't have it both ways, Scjessey. This article is what it is because Obama is president. Obama the man and Obama the president cannot be separated, and no effort at all has been made here to separate the two — with the sole exception of criticism and controversy, which has been deleted and its proponents blocked and banned at every opportunity. Stop it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The high forties and low fifties are only a few percentage points apart and the 2010 election was a knee-jerk reaction to the 2008 election, which in itself was a knee-jerk reaction to an economic and fiscal crisis in the private sector. Yes, Obama the president affects Obama the man, and Obama the man affects Obama the president; criticism should be included, but not given undue weight. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article's length or weight under any hypothetical is irrelevant - he's President Obama, not Senator Obama or Professor Obama. With that being said, his approval rating is in the high 40s, and he's received criticisms on virtually every subject, from the recession to foreign policy with regards to the Middle East and Libya to not being vocal enough on social issues such as gay marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.212.212 (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's received those criticisms; but do they appear in this article in the same way that similar criticisms appear in the Misplaced Pages biographies of other presidents and prime ministers who polled in the 40s? No, they do not. Some of those other biographies are Featured Articles, and should be capable of being used as a guide for improving this article. But we are told that the level of criticism in those Featured Articles doesn't belong in this particular Featured Article. Anyone care to explain? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism in the intro would most likely be a violation of WP:UNDUE if not handled carefully. I think we need to take cues from the articles on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who both tracked in the 40s around this time into their first terms; they only mention the major criticisms in as objective a way as possible, and not in a way that detracts from the article: in the Clinton article, his impeachment, and in the Reagan article, Iran-Contra, are given a sentence each in each article. Sceptre 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that constructive input — are Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan Featured Articles? We shouldn't compromise the integrity of this Featured Article by using anything of lesser stature and quality as our guide. Only biographies of world leaders that are currently FAs (or, at the very least, were FAs at one time, or are currently rated as Good Articles) should be used for guidance here. Tony Blair, for example. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've checked — Bill Clinton has never been a FA and is a former (not current) GA, so it should not be used as a guide. But Ronald Reagan is a current FA, so it should be able to provide some guidance on the amount of criticism to include here. The Iran-Contra affair receives three paragraphs of space and a subsection header, a considerable amount of weight. Similar weight should be allocated to criticism and controversy in this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

FAs are like a car's MOT test: passing FAC doesn't mean that it will always conform to the FA standards; it just means it conformed when it was reviewed. There are some FAs that wouldn't pass FAC today, and the diligent reviewers at FAR often get rid of such when they get around to them. Anyway, Iran-Contra warrants a sentence in the lead section, and three neutral paragraphs in the article. And this is for something where Reagan was found to have committed war crimes.

There's also a danger that in how we write the content of the lead section may end up in us writing his legacy for good or bad. We're a top-ten website, so we have an ethical duty to ensure that, well, we don't. We have no way of knowing what his legacy will be, unlike Reagan, Ford, Clinton, or the other forty. I'm fine with the article's lead section as it is, just listing what major legislation has taken place. I do agree, though, that the section on health care might need a little expansion, no more than two or three sentences, detailing Republican opposition and legal challenges to the PPACA. Sceptre 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why should approval ratings have anything to do with mention of criticisms and accomplishments? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Because lower approval ratings indicate that criticism may be a majority opinion per policy on WP:WEIGHT. At the very least, with Obama's Gallup daily tracking poll down in the 40s for more than a year, it's a significant minority opinion that deserves mention. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's in the article why do you want it in the intro? My understanding is that the intro is to be the most important facts summarized from the article.TheThomas (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of dancing around this issue. Here's the thing: if you constructively look at the various criticisms our various wiki editors are passionately trying to push into the article and highlight to our readers, you realize that they don't amount to much. Most can be summed up: "I don't like the man or his politics, so I am going to criticize him for everything he does and make up a couple things too!" Yet, when you compare those criticisms of Obama against say: the Iran Contra affair of Regan's, you realize they do not have the same weight. The Iran Contra affair was a scandal that not only effected Regan, but also a variety of people including the military, CIA, congress, etc. Whereas, there hasn't been a scandal like that in Obama's presidency yet. So basically, the clear majority of the criticisms of Obama don't rise to that level. Plus, another reason behind this push for inclusion of criticisms is simular to what happened back during the 2008 presidential elections. Basically, editors are coming to this article to help "correct" the perceived liberal bias to better inform potential voters how "evil" the man is. These same editors also assume more weight to the various criticisms they read then what is really due to those criticisms. To sum up the various editors comments and the ones who will be replying after me: they want these and many other criticisms highlighted, expanded upon, made more prominent. The answer is: no, not unless it becomes a major scandal along the lines of the Iran Contra affair. Brothejr (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

I find this article to have a strong liberal bias, like most of the articles on Misplaced Pages. I find it awfully strange that there are no criticisms in the intro. George Bush's intro contains criticisms. There is no mention of the birth certificate issue, although it is turning out to be a major one. According to a recent poll, 43% of all Americans either think that Obama was not born in America, or they are not sure that he was born in America. Compare that to any president since the inception of mass media, and it is a massive issue. Donald Trump, a very possible candidate for president, also believes that he was not born in America. The issue is no longer one that anyone can avoid, regardless of how much of a liberal bias they have.

It is also kind of strange that[REDACTED] doesn't have an article on liberal bias in the media and academia, althogh this fact has been confirmed and reaffirmed in countless studies. Wikpedia seems to be behind the curve on this issue. It is a well known fact throughout our society, and on many other information sites. This, in addition to the fact that[REDACTED] seems to have an article on every conceivable subject under the sun. I think what it boils down to is the fact that[REDACTED] has an immense liberal bias, along with much of academia.75.69.20.8 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I understand that[REDACTED] has an article dedicated to overall, general bias in the media, but it refuses to mention liberal bias by name as a exclusive entity. The article refuses to mention the existence of an overall liberal bias, which definitely exists. 75.69.20.8 (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your scholarly analysis. I'm sure your concerns will be addressed with all possible haste. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

75.69.20.8: Misplaced Pages's rule on neutrality says that we're supposed to repeat the bias of reliable sources. So if academia has a liberal bias, so will Misplaced Pages. I doubt that will change anytime soon. But you probably have a point that the citizenship issue has become enough of a political issue that it warrants coverage in this article.

Scjessey: Misplaced Pages:Sarcasm is really helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ya, don't you know that some people on earth just don't do anything wrong. Its not that there is a bias in the article, its that every time that someone thinks that Obam did anything wrong, they are mistaken, because a consensus says they are.--JOJ 18:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

About as helpful as your tsk-tsk'ing response was, really. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and should not be extended to those with an obvious axe to grind. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that Obama has been doing a lot of the very same things that liberals criticized Bush for — keeping Guantanamo Bay open, extraordinary rendition to countries that torture prisoners, warrantless wiretaps, keeping our troops in Iraq past the 16 months he promised during his presidential campaign, and now the bombing of Libya without congressional authorization — perhaps editors with a liberal bias might finally see the value of including some criticism — but only from left-wing sources like Huffington Post, Salon.com and The Nation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I must say that per WP:V, its not about truth, but about reliable sources. And the sources say that he is a good president and better than Bush.--JOJ 18:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what sources you're reading, I suppose. William Kristol, a conservative, has praised Obama as a "born again neocon." Maybe we can avoid Scjessey's ban on all criticism by including praise from conservatives. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

From your numerous posts on the talk page, edit summaries and general battleground behavior, I don't think many will believe your intentions here are to improve the article. In fact, you outright state your intentions. So excuse me if any criticism of others from you is taken with a huge grain of salt. Dave Dial (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My intention is to produce an article that obeys WP:NPOV by including noteworthy criticism, like other articles about presidents and prime ministers. This one does not. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think P&W's attacks on me in these two sections are ridiculous, quite frankly. I made a couple of legitimate points about WP:WEIGHT and suddenly I'm part of some grand scheme to enact a "ban on all criticism". Someone obviously needs to take a step back. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Peace, folks, peace. I don't think the IP observation was particularly helpful for improving the article. It looks like lots of very similar comments from the past and there's little point engaging new editors who come here to advance birther theories other than a polite (*ahem*) "no" and referral to the more appropriate article, FAQ, etc. Now where were we? Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That FAQ is now so ingrained into the fabric of U.S. society that it may as well be adopted as the 28th Amendment. I'll even word it for you. No discussion, varying the mention of birth status on[REDACTED] of Barack Obama shall hither be mentioned on said web-site, either on the said talk page, nor on the adjoining pages combined, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball or its underwriters.--JOJ 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Not quite, but this particular subject on this particular article does have the momentum of an Arbcom case, 2+ years of article probation, dozens of legitimate long term editors and 100+ banned troll and sockpuppet accounts, so when brand new IP editors comes in amidst a flurry of renewed socking making invalid arguments that sound almost word for word like things that IP editors have said before, we don't exactly ask "how high" when they ask us to jump. WP:AGF and decorum suggest that we be dignified and polite in referring them to the reasons why we have chosen so far not to include this popular fringe theory / partisan attack, but WP:DENY and WP:FORUM, among other things, are good reasons why we like to keep the chatter to a minimum on this page rather than openingup new discussions every week on Misplaced Pages's supposed liberal bias, WP:CABAL, and all that. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

True, if by 'liberal bias' you mean 'fact-based reality'. One can usually check out what's happening in the Conservapedia article to find out what's triggered the latest reiteration of these arguments. btw - CP blames the Clinton campaign for the birth certificate meme, and totally ignores Tony Martin and Insight magazine and the three Fox News programs. I'd say they need more help in addressing 'bias' than WP does, and you may find it more rewarding to help them. Flatterworld (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

@ the originator of this section, I think you will find the reason for the alleged bias in the fact that the people who choose to edit an encyclopedia are generally highly educated. Many studies have shown a correlation between educational level and liberal, or at least not extreme, leanings. Cliff (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Many studies have shown ..." has often been shown to be a prefix for a partisan argument. The left-wing bias at Misplaced Pages is more accurately explained by the liberal Groupthink tendency to attempt to influence the thinking of others, by gaining control of information sources. Thus the dominance of progressive/left-wing/liberals in the teaching and journalism professions, while equally highly-educated conservatives tend to dominate business management and engineering. Misplaced Pages is a natural magnet for those liberals who seek to control the sources of information, and thereby control content. Nowhere has this been more evident than on this page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

, both of you (by which I mean Cliff and Phoenix). — Rickyrab | Talk 01:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to work with anyone on Misplaced Pages who bleats constantly about "left-wing bias", because it is basically an assumption of bad faith aimed at fellow Wikipedians. Editors who constantly make this claim are denigrating the work of others and the project in general, so it bugs me that regular editors are expected to accommodate such people. Hundreds of editors have worked extremely hard to make this article the best they can (and related articles, of course), and their good work is basically shit upon by anyone who comes here and starts banging on about leftists, cabals and socialists. Misplaced Pages is not a "natural magnet for those Liberals who seek to control the sources of information" et al, but rather it is a natural magnet for anyone who wishes to volunteer their time to aid in the spread of all knowledge. To my mind, this is a noble goal worthy of praise, not condemnation. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Scjessey, every time someone attempts to introduce criticism into this article, or even a topic which might engender criticism, certain editors object. They want it moved to some other article, and often to an article that isn't even linked here. They talk about socks. They run to ANI and Arbitration. Other Featured Articles about heads of state, such as Ronald Reagan and Tony Blair, contain substantial amounts of criticism; and the amount of criticism against Obama in noteworthy, reliable, mainstream sources is likewise substantial. But those articles contain criticism and this one doesn't. Let's focus on the article and try to improve it by bringing it into line with all of Misplaced Pages's other Featured Articles about heads of state. It's time to include some criticism of Barack Obama. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

P&W, I think that's a self-defeating way of looking at things, the first part at least. There have been persistent socks here, hundreds of sock accounts from several known sources spawning dozens of cases, sullying the work of the legitimate editors around here and costing many thousands of hours to deal with them. I don't think you're going to convince any of the regular editors around here to be less vigilant or suspicious about that, because their suspicions have proven true again and again. Also, most of the people here genuinely want to have a good article and are not intentionally playing politics with it. Everyone has their own way of looking at the world and of course personal opinion does creep into decisions that are supposed to be objective, but accusing people of things isn't going to make them more objective. I think it's fair to say that attempts to add derogatory information to the article are greeted with skepticism, particularly things like birther theories that have been proposed and rejected many times before and that were the subject of earlier shenanigans. Featured articles are a major feat, and doubly so for people whose tales are not yet told and who are the subject of so much current political attention. My hunch is that in the end, when Obama's long gone and his tale is finally told, the strange tale of the birthers will be a footnote in his biography (assuming of course that the theory is bunk - if it were true then obviously it would go in the first sentence). I personally don't like criticism sections and think that most articles about most people are mostly about their positive achievements rather than people's negative (or positive) opinions of them, something that's true whether the subject is Obama, Palin, or Britney Spears. Maybe not Qadaffi, but even there the issue isn't that he is criticized and disliked in the English speaking world but that he did lots of things that upset people. I wouldn't favor adding criticism just for the sake of criticism, but if there's a fact about Obama (including a fact that he made mistakes, or he's the subject of political opposition or critical analysis) I'm definitely open to that and everyone else ought to be as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has focused primarily on generalities, and not specifics. P&W (or whoever): Is there some specific criticism that you think belongs in the article? If so, what is it and why do you think it should be included? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I have never attempted to add any birther information. But the disagreement over whether or not to even mention the enormous missile and bombing attacks against Libya, and the many deletions (and the nine different editors who had to speak out and say they supported the content) before it was finally allowed to be in the article, are still fresh in my memory. It isn't birther information, Wikidemon. It's well-sourced, mainstream, multiple reliable sources covering major world events, that were the top stories on every news broadcast on all the networks for a week, with Congressional leaders and notable legal scholars (including a Yale law professor) questioning the president's power to order this action without Congressional approval. And still there was resistance from certain editors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to justify any abuse directed your way, and you're an old hand around these parts. I was thinking of several recent IP contributions, including the one that started this section. This one (to paraphrase, "I'm an Obama supporter but y'all a bunch of liberal tools") is very familiar, but I can't say if it's because the same editor is back to harangue us or if it's a turn of phrase that naturally occurs to people. Particularly after the hubbub from early 2009 I strongly think we should all give each other the benefit of the doubt and be polite, particularly to newbies acting strangely. But anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that any controversial information faces a lot of discussion before people get around to accepting it. That's as it should be for a stable article, but the problem here is that the world keeps turning faster than Misplaced Pages can update the article about it. The Libyan action is (was?) a current event so it's not surprising it took a while. Patience... - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What I find troubling, WD, is that whenever it's criticism, or a controversial issue that could possibly give rise to criticism, it's always the same people who move like glaciers when getting around to accepting it. But when the world turns fast and produces something that makes Obama look good, like beating Alan Keyes by a 70-30 margin to win a US Senate seat, or winning the presidency or an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize, the same people get around to accepting it with amazing speed. The principal advantage of WP over other encyclopedias is that it can report changes and new events rapidly. In reporting the Libyan adventure in this particular article, we failed miserably. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're not comparing like for like. The criticisms you evidently desire to be in this article do not compare in significance or credibility with the events you just mentioned. Transient poll numbers, for example, do not compare in significance to winning the presidency. Similarly, the "birther" nonsense does not compare in credibility to winning a seat in the US Senate. Incidentally, the campaign and election of Obama had a significant effect on the world's view of America (and Americans in general) that may have influenced the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. I am among those who agree that this "aspirational" award was probably undeserved, but that does not change the fact that he was given it, nor the reasons the prize committee had for doing so. Moreover, your claim that the Libyan issue has not been "reported" properly forces me to remind you that "reporting" is not something we do with Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, I have never attempted to introduce birther material in this article, Scjessey. What you're using here is called a strawman argument. And when a president's poll numbers stay below 50 percent for a year, they are no longer transient. It represents a long-term malaise in his relationship with the American people. Winning a political campaign does not and cannot substitute for the lifelong dedication to working for peace that the Peace Prize represents, and other recipients of the Peace Prize who share Obama's political perspective (I point this out to emphasize that it isn't just coming from the right wing) agree that he didn't deserve it. His nomination for the prize had to be entered no later than mid-February 2009. He had been in office less than a month. You lecture me that Misplaced Pages is not a "reporting" service, and yet his electoral victories were reported here within minutes. All of these diversions distract attention away from the fact that whenever negative information finally finds its way into this article it is always amputated down to a few words, long delayed after the events that triggered the notable criticism from multiple noteworthy sources, in all corners of politics and no politics at all. Let's recognize that fact, and try to improve this article to become genuinely NPOV, like Ronald Reagan and Tony Blair, a pair of Featured Articles that contain substantial amounts of criticism. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles about the Libyan protests and civil war. What's needed in this article is a link to the main Libyan article, and a one or two sentence summary. We can't even keep all the Arab world protest articles in sync and up to date, so I don't see the point of trying to repeat all that information here as well. When it's all over it will be much easier to see and sum up what are and aren't the most important points. At this point, of course there are going to be different views on what's important and what isn't. That's why we link from one article to another. There's not much to discuss on A won this election by B percent. There's a lot to discuss on Libya, which is why we have an entire series of articles about it. Flatterworld (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The protests in the other Arab countries don't involve daily airstrikes and cruise missile attacks ordered by the man who is the subject of this biography. There's no American military action in those countries at all, so it's appropriate that they aren't even mentioned here. When Obama speaks out in support of protests in Egypt, etc. then a sentence in the Middle East subsection of the Foreign Policy section is appropriate.

This, however, is American involvement in a civil war. It's costing hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in US taxpayer money with no end in sight. The lives of American servicemen are in harm's way. And Obama has arguably violated section 2 of the War Powers Resolution by ordering military action without Congressional approval. This has earned notable criticism from the left and the right, which should receive one brief, representative quote here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just not a reasonable description of what's going on in Libya at all. The involvement of the American military began as a UN-sanctioned coalition of forces specifically employed to enforce a no-fly zone, and this later morphed into a NATO-led exercise backed by UN resolution. Decisions made by Obama with respect to Libya are nowhere near as historically significant as, for example, invading Iraq with a massive "shock and awe" campaign. Yet again, you are attempting to make more of something than it really is. I'm not even going to bother replying to your non-answer to my earlier comments. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a reasonable description. It's a civil war. We are attacking one side. The other side benefits substantially from those attacks, even though we may not be in direct contact with them. We are enforcing a No-Fly Zone which protects not only civilians, but also rebel forces deployed in the No-Fly Zone. we are also attacking ground forces and destroying tanks whenever they threaten civilians. Five minutes earlier or five minutes later, those same tanks could have been shooting at rebel forces. So yes, we are involved in a civil war. George W. Bush is merely a Good Article, not a Featured Article, so we shouldn't be relying on it too much for guidance in our efforts to improve this Featured Article. But that article devotes eight or nine long paragraphs to the war in Iraq and extensive space to criticism. The war is also mentioned at least twice elsewhere in the article, including the lede. It's distinguished very easily from the treatment of Libya in this article, where we have one paragraph, one mention in the lede, and nothing else. All I'm saying is that we should add one brief quote from a critic. The critic can be a left-winger such as Glenn Greenwald if you choose. But I like the way William Kristol called Obama a "born again neocon." Regarding my non-answer, I refrained from replying because I do not want to escalate this disagreement. I choose to remain civil and move on with improving the article. You are choosing to keep fighting. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the Libya paragraph we have here is good now. Libya has by no means reached the levels of Iraq yet and this has been ongoing for much less time. As far as the neocon title, that may be valid (and growing in secondary sources) in the future if aside from liberal interventionist 1. I will do some more research but the title seems to accompany more than Libya; Iraq and Afghanistan too. With the biography, specifically citing areas of bias is most helpful. In general, this article will change over the years, especially when he is out of office and reliable secondary sources look back at the effectiveness and result of his policies. I also think Misplaced Pages can and is viewed as an advocacy platform for both the right and left. It is easy to edit and highly visible in Google searches. I have seen both since I have been here. Since I have been in discussions on this talk page and Obama-related ones, I have seen a slight overreaction to some criticism. I think that is due to the constant socking and POV-pushing. In some cases it is legitimate, in most it isn't. In the end, as has been noted here before, Misplaced Pages can't always escape bias in secondary sources, the articles reflect it.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Other Featured Articles about heads of state, such as Ronald Reagan and Tony Blair, contain substantial amounts of criticism" - well, given that Blair is to the left of Obama and indeed most US politicians, that ought to quash the claim that a "liberal bias" pervades Misplaced Pages. 129.67.85.162 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

DUH. what did you expect? Thats why[REDACTED] is not accepted as a source in colleges. Because it is not an encyclopedia. It is an encyclopedia tainted with a great deal of bias and unverifiable claims. Sometimes its political and purposeful in its innacuracies, such as on Barry the Kenyan born Muslim's page where it says hes an american born citizen and a christian. Other times its just because the person who wrote the article believes something to be true, but is wrong. For example on Keshas page it says her eye makeup was inspired by the movie "A Clockwork Orange" when that is actually a rumor with absolutely nothing to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.9.94 (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the Keshas page", but if this has a talk page then you can state your objection there. Add piffle about "Barry the Kenyan born Muslim" to some other website, perhaps your own. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Reality has a known liberal bias. If you perceive a bias on all the pages on a website that strives at all times to be unbiased then the problem is you.TheThomas (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A fresh look at the article

I just read completely through the article, twice. I would say there is no "liberal bias", but it is still quite rosy and overtly optimistic. Reading through this page, you would think Obama had never had to overcome any obstacles during his presidency, and that there was never any opposition or resistance to anything he did. This occurs in some of the other presidents articles as well, I guess Americans just don't like to see their presidents portrayed poorly.--FrankieG123 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the "rosy" tone is to prevent pre-writing his legacy. I do agree that mention of some resistance, in the form of Republican opposition to the PPACA, is warranted. And I hope that when the US has a Republican president, that we can not fall to the sniping that plagued the Bush articles for so long. Sceptre 06:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Some areas of the article remind me of a government's tendency to list legislation or tell you what a program/policy is intended to accomplish while being reluctant to give results at times. Given though, a lot of these policies will take time to reach a result and reliable analysis in secondary sources. The last paragraph of the health care reform should include the opposition which was enormously significant in the debate.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that hard either. It could be something as simple as:

Obama's healthcare proposals were unanimously opposed by Republicans: no Republican voted for the final act in Congress, and upon passage, several state Republican Secretaries of State joined a lawsuit against the act. After the 2010 midterm elections, the new House majority's second bill was entitled the "Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act".

Sceptre 16:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds very good, Sceptre. If you have a reliable source to cite, let's put it in. I also believe the 2010 midterm elections deserve more space and weight. Obama's political party lost control of one legislative chamber, and its majority in the other became razor thin. After the midterms, the bully pulpit doesn't work any more. Obama is running into substantial opposition on the budget and on raising the debt ceiling, requiring a last minute deal (with major concessions by Obama) to avoid a government shutdown. Without the support of a House majority, Obama doesn't have the same latitude (or even power) that he did in his first two years. This is a game changer and therefore, it should be covered in greater detail. There is no shortage of reliable sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "game changer" at all. This is part of the normal election cycle, and it will play out just like the Bush and Clinton administrations did before it. And once again, let's not do any crystal ball gazing by suggesting Obama will " into substantial opposition on raising the debt ceiling," particularly as we all know it will be raised without difficulty - no sane politician will risk crippling America's financial standing in the world and tipping us all into another, deeper recession. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, Barack Obama is already running into considerable opposition, even from members of his own party and an independent senator who normally caucuses with his party, on the issue of raising the debt ceiling. There is no WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing required, Scjessey. This wouldn't be happening if the democrats had won the midterm election and retained control of the House. The feud over the budget blankets the news in the same way that the war in Libya blanketed the news a few weeks ago. The feud over raising the debt ceiling has already started. There are abundant reliable sources to confirm these facts, Scjessey. And again you resist any mention of anything that might make this article a little less cheerful and overly optimistic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding a government shut-down or far worse, a national debt default, is not the priority of one party or of the administration - it's a national priority. If one party practices brinkmanship and the other does not back down, that is a failure of the body politic. The President is a party to that, but it is only indirectly related to his popularity and loss of power - had the Democrats retained control of Congress the Republicans would have been too weak to make that move. I think it's fair to describe the midterm elections and change in the political balance as a significant event affecting the Presidency, but the context here is the greater sweep of American politics, which seems to be a backlash typical of midterm elections. Something similar happened in 1994-95. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick response to the 'Liberal Bias' comments I've been reading here. There is an entire section of Misplaced Pages called 'Conservapedia', which describes itself in its opening paragraph as "is an English-language wiki project written from an American conservative Christian point of view". When you go to Conservapedia's 'Socialism' page, you are instantly greeted with images of Adolf Hitler and the former National Socialist Party. The Nazi's were NOT true socialists. They were madmen and monsters of epic scope. If you can't be factual yourself, then please stop complaing about bias in Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSummoner (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Though most of your statement holds true, conservapedia(*spits on floor*) is NOT a part of Misplaced Pages. It is simply an imitation website. There are many sites which imitate Misplaced Pages, call themselves wiki-something, but are in-no-way affiliated with the Wikimedia foundation which own Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 10:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

At what point does a conspiracy theory become notable?

We're heading into the election for his second term and his prospective opponents are still making the "Birther" stuff an issue. I say that's notable, if only for its remarkable persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, though I personally have no doubt whatsoever that he was born in Hawaii. For the record my personal bias is conservative, I didn't vote for him, I support him as the CINC and the "birthers" are full of crap. A self-described liberal should make the "birther" edit to avoid the appearance of impropriety.Pär Larsson (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's unnecessary for a "self-described" anyone to make any specific edit. All of us must check our politics at the door when we begin to edit. I'm against adding too much more of the "birther" stuff, mainly because it's been proven false again and again, as you have noted. Just because a few kooks won't let something go doesn't mean we have to spectacularize it. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone searching for 'birther' will be redirected to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, so it's not as if no one can find the material. It's not notable, it's scurrilous. The Elvis Presley article doesn't include the claims that he didn't really die, nor does the JFK article. Misplaced Pages is already on pretty thin ice on many of the politician articles, getting pretty close to falling into the tabloid waters of tittle-tattle, rumors, lies and innuendo. What's notable for a politician is what s/he does AS a politician, along with some background on his/her life which could be expected to contribute to their views or whatever. Flatterworld (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Moon landing article has an entire section on Moon landing conspiracy theories and September 11 attacks has a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories. So fringe conspiracy theories sometimes do get mentioned in a main article. True, those two aren't biographies but that's a WP:BLP issue, not a relevancy / weight issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you that it's more of a BLP issue than a weight issue, though both probably could apply. On the other hand, there are now 4 full articles devoted to Obama conspiracy theories, which means both BLP and weight issues have already permitted mention, since those articles would fall under the same kind of BLP umbrella. For all we know, we could be writing that the birther issue was paramount in Obama's 2012 defeat. Though it seems more likely it might be the opposite than that. Still, I would say that right now, on this article, it's not worth adding, on both the points mentioned. And if it is, I agree that whomever adds it doesn't have to be of any political persuasion. Neutrality doesn't have an ideology. Dave Dial (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a WEIGHT issue. Birtherism is so much of a minority opinion that the mere mention would be giving credence to the theory where none exists; I mean, for fuck's sake, Ann Coulter says that birtherism is stupid. Sceptre 23:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the issue is a non-starter unless a Reliable Source or two sees credibility in it, or even meaningful debate about it, PhGustaf (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can mention the fake moon landing thing instead :) - Wikidemon (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't. Some birther would infer that Obama was born on the moon and smuggled back on Apollo 11. PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally false. He was born on Mars, which is why NASA is now charged with a mission there. And something about the Mars equivalent of kryptonite. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Another issue is that this a an article about Obama the person and so far this has not appeared to have any impact on him personally (ie he lost the 2008 general election over it, was removed from office, was the topic of major speeches by Obama). Granted if something happens at a later date due to this issue like it causes him to lose in 2012 and we have reliable sources that make connection we can reconsider at that point but for the time being it does not need to be mentioned here.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

One way to determine the notability of a particular facet of a person's life is to determine how many notable people have openly addressed it. Donald Trump is now on record in support of simply asking Obama to produce a copy of his birth certificate. I'm not convinced yet that it deserves mention in this article but what do you think? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're (imo incorrectly) assuming The Donald is notable. Flatterworld (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not determine notability by how many notable people talked about something. This has no basis in policy. Donald Trump is not an academic, nor an expert in history, politics, genealogy or any other relevant field as far as I know. Ditto for Ann Coulter. Likewise, arguments that birther conspiracy theories are wrong or stupid also have no basis in policy. Instead, WP:WEIGHT should be assigned based on coverage in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The above comment by 76.66.187.132 is the key: there is no evidence that the birther nonsense has had a significant effect ("significant" in terms of encyclopedic content). Accordingly, attempts to introduce it into this article are misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...what significant effect has Obama's dog had? BTW, one could possibly reasonably argue that the Democratic defeat in the congressional elections was - in part - fueled by birthers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you could argue that all this has had a significant effect on the President's life. Probably not as much as the dog but more than the annual turkey pardon. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It might have an effect if he pardons too many and has a reputation for being soft on turkeys. Sceptre 00:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless turkeys are found to be members of Al-Qaeda. Flatterworld (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If Obama were to lose the 2012 election because of the birthers, we would say so because obviously that would have had a major effect on his life and his career. But we would do that after that election, when there was reliable source analysis drawing that conclusion. Not based on speculation or crystal-ball reading now. These fringe conspiracies already have a lot of space devoted to them in the encyclopedia - this article has plenty to deal with without it. And the poor dog gets one measly sentence (which is one more than the damn turkey), so can't we leave him out of this discussion? Tvoz/talk 01:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking along the same lines and agree; wait til' the election. If it has a major effect, I'd say it is significant for the biography.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

At what point does a conspiracy theory become notable? When Jon Kyl claims 90% of the people believe it. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As much as I personally think it's all seriously deluded hoo-hah, I can see how some might in good faith suggest it is notable in terms of his presidency. I think what a previous poster said trumps all our back and forth personal takes on it....we really need a RS that states it's a big deal... It certainly shouldn't be included in terms of "He might not be American", but it could technically be relevant in terms of indicating that there were critics who questioned his place of birth (if we found RS that indicated it was mroe than just serious Fringe.). I think this is one of those times it's best for us not to try to judge notability in a vacuum, but to base it at least partially on finding someone reputable who has made a comment directly about the scope/scale of the impact, not just that it exists. And yeah, all partisanship aside...if Ann Coulter thinks you're too far right/irrational, you should probably back the Crazytown trolley up a few stops to Selfassessmentville.204.65.34.242 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As ridiculous as I think this whole birther issue is, I think it's equally ridiculous to not mention it in this article. It's only one step removed from pretending the issue doesn't even exist. If we want a reliable source, it shouldn't be too hard to find. What about this article from the Washington Post -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-release-of-birth-certificate-does-little-to-allay-birther-fears/2011/04/27/AFv4RP1E_story.html -- which claims that Obama has opined that the birther issue "has distracted the country from urgent policy matters involving wars, the federal debt and the economy"? If the issues are reliable sources or notability, we've got one of the nation's top newspapers claiming that the President himself commenting on the (negative, but still significant) impact of the birther controversy. Minaker (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama not graduating latin honors?

Apparently User:EECEE feels it's quite necessary to point out ] that Obama did not graduate Latin honors from Columbia School of General Studies and cites the schools general honors page as reference to back up this WP:OR. The first question is why is this even remotely important? Subject does not claim to have graduated with honors and the article does not claim that he graduated with honors? What's the point for adding this information? Where are the reliable third party sources that makes this an issue to be included in the general biography ob Obama? Brothejr (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-mannered response to my request that you not keep deleting my edits before discussing them here. I see this is not the first time people have had problems with your style. If you continue with this slash and burn edit war style I'm going to ask for a third-party intervention.

Of course it's quite appropriate to talk about the man's academic performance while in college, especially as it's a pretty frequent topic of discussion in news and commentary articles (ten seconds on Google would tell you that). There are plenty of contributions to this article that flesh out other aspects of his life, for instance his accomplishments as a community organizer - it would be silly to insist that they only be included because someone was arguing something to the contrary. As to sources, I actually was looking for a news article to include that mentions that he graduated without honors. And of course Columbia's academic honors policy website is a reliable third party source with respect to the policy itself. --EECEE (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

<Ignoring sarcasm and veiled threats> Um, what discussion? I've not heard a peep out of any major news channel about him not graduating with honors? I also did a quick Google search and found no news articles on the subject. Maybe you can post a link to the article you read so we can read it for ourselves? Also, back to the original question why is him not graduating with honors (Which happens to the vast majority of college students) is so important that it needs to be pointed out in his biography? As far as I read, the current version does not allude to him graduating with honors nor am I familiar with him ever mentioning he graduating from Columbia with honors. If he did not and we do not mention it, then why is it so important that we need to highlight the fact that he was like all the other college students who did not graduate without honors? On a side note: I wonder how many other politicians graduated from their colleges without honors? Brothejr (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for ignoring MY sarcasm. I understand your "history" at Misplaced Pages a little more now.

Your points could be made about almost any addition to a biographical article, but sure, I'll get back with more articles and discussion.--EECEE (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, when new material is added to an article (and particularly an FA where it should be expected that plenty of scrutiny has occurred), if that material is reverted, a discussion must justify the addition (and not, as suggested in this edit that someone else should "take this to the talk page before deleting this again"). That edit is a clear violation of WP:OR: we do not insert commentary about the subject's academic record. This might be a good time to remind everyone that "This article has been placed on article probation" (see notice at top of this talk page). Johnuniq (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you go back and read up a little more on WP:BRD. It requires no such thing. For instance:

"Problem: Editing a particular page has become tricky, too many people are stuck discussing endlessly, and no progress can be made.

How to proceed: Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus with each, one by one."

(Do you seriously think he needed to discover who the Most Interested Person was in this case?)

Pay special attention to "What BRD is, and is not":

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD."

I also suggest you read up a bit more on WP:OR. However, I am perfectly willing to make my case on the discussion page. --EECEE (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

EECEE, lay off the personal attacks. Johnuniq asked a perfectly sane question, which you perfectly chose to ignore. Why is this important? Obama also failed to hit 72 home runs while not playing baseball. He also failed miserably to walk on Saturn. Furthermore, it is horrible that he has not performed a heart transplant. Lastly, I am disappointed that he hasn't won an Olympic gold medal in the Modern Pentathalon. In other words, what relevance is it for his not getting this particular honor, when he has never once claimed it. Nor, as Johnuniq points out, no one else has either. This is about the most ridiculous thing I've read. And I track a lot of articles with ridiculous stuff being written. OrangeMarlin 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq was not the one who asked those questions. That was Brothejr, who did so in a pretty insulting manner. And I didn't ignore them at all. However, as I said, I am perfectly willing to make my case on the discussion page when I have some time to devote to it.--EECEE (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have heard that it was indeed Obama who stole the cookies from the cookie jar, though. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus, precedence, and BLP all seem to be against you at this point, EECEE, so thanks for continuing the discussion here. BRD is pretty clear. Dayewalker (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well seeing as I was the one who requested - repeatedly - that the issue be brought to the discussion page... . And again, BRD isn't "pretty clear" in the way the other editor suggested, and that was my objection.--EECEE (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

← Yes, absolutely, per BRD and per article probation rules, discussion goes here, but this is not merely a procedural matter or a matter of consensus. OR/SYNTH concerns indeed are totally relevant here and I agree with the points made above by Orangemarlin et al. about the absurdity and invalidity of including something that the subject did not do, which he didn't claim to do, nor did anyone else claim that he did. But this is also a matter of the utter lack of sourcing even for the claim that Obama attended Columbia's School of General Studies rather than the College in the first place. Because gee whiz golly, all I can find on that are unsourced assertions spewed out by conservative blogs. Without real sources for GS this entire matter is just POV disruption - I'm shocked, shocked - and no further discussion here is needed about this made-up nonsense. Tvoz/talk 20:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, this article from January 2005 and this one from January/February 2009 about Obama-as-alum are both in Columbia COLLEGE Today, the official publication for alumni of the division of Columbia University known as Columbia College. As compared to OWL magazine, the official alumni publication of Columbia University School of General Studies. Just saying. Tvoz/talk 21:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Somehow my prior response disappeared, so I'll try again. I had said I am entirely willing to be corrected on the matter of his enrollment at Columbia GS; it was my understanding that that was his program, and the GS page certainly had the clearest explanation of the honors system applied throughout Columbia University. I will be happy to research more and present any corrections necessary. Sorry you think it was "made-up nonsense" with no intention but to disrupt, because that was certainly not the case. You are welcome to look at my history of contributions to various Misplaced Pages articles if you think I am a troll.

On the other hand, no one appreciates slash-and-burn edit tactics delivered with high-handed pronouncements. --EECEE (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to read this, as any proposed change accompanied by accusations of bad faith against people opposing it is pretty much DOA. Proposed changes disputed in good faith stay out unless there is consensus. As near as I can gather from the little actual substance in this discussion, I see a preponderance of reliable sources that say Obama graduated with honors, and no reliable sources saying that this is false. Applying a little common sense to this, some colleges use the Latin designations ("cum laude", etc.) and some use the English designations ("with honors", etc.), and in the real world both graduates and sources reporting on graduates feel free to translate between English and Latin at will. Is that the issue here? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking to me, I don't think I made an "accusation of bad faith" but objected to the insulting manner in which parts of this were handled. There are actually no sources that say Obama graduated with honors from Columbia (the Latin/English issue is really irrelevant), and in fact it is the absence of an honors designation that people seem to be bothered by here: why discuss a negative? I chose to introduce it because the fact that he evidently graduated without honors is something one sees referenced - even in passing - in many if not most discussions of his academic background. Perhaps it doesn't belong here, but in an article dealing with the various Obama "controversies" (contrived or otherwise)...as I say I am willing to put the thought and work into achieving a good article.

However, let me say that I've successfully worked for a long time on several controversial articles, with people of all points of view, but have rarely seen such immediately offputting behavior. Just my opinion, of course.--EECEE (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking from the outside, the community's reaction is entirely understandable. You introduced yourself to the editors here by edit warring over a proposed addition that is obviously incorrectly sourced, and that editors felt would be impertinent even if sourced, all the while crying foul and proposing an alternative version of WP:BRD whereby material you want to add remains in the article until somebody convinces you otherwise. Most of your prior experience seems to be from 2005-2006, a period when Misplaced Pages was in transition from an earlier more collegial free-for-all environment. You don't appear to have worked on an article as important or highly trafficked as this one - this is a featured article, on probation, that has seen at least one arbitration committee case, many dozens of administrative reports, and well over 100 (probably 200+ at this points) accounts indefinitely blocked for misbehavior. Although I'm the first one to remind people to be courteous with newbies, there isn't a whole lot of patience for people who don't fall in line after being pointed to the applicable policies and guidelines. If you want to engage constructively here you really have to drop the complaint and focus on the content. You haven't proposed a secondary source for the statement that Obama didn't graduate with honors from Columbia, and that he could not have because they didn't give out honors in his program (or something like that), nor have you given a convincing argument that this is relevant even if sourced. The only relevancy I can see of Obama's failure to achieve a nonexistent goal is to dispel a minor family of smears and fringe urban rumors along the lines of Obama being an affirmative action baby, hoax, manchurian president, committing resume fraud, not a real professor, incapable of writing the book attributed to him (and thus it being ghost written by a supposed terrorist), etc. Questions over his academic credentials arising from that are not biographically relevant, because false smears directed at politicians are a step removed from actual biographical information and even in the realm of political dirt this is minor and none of this stuff stuck. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me say I find myself in a no-win position...I answer personal accusations and I'm focusing on the "complaint" and not the content. So at the risk of continuing to "focus on the complaint", please allow me to respond to the personal parts of your comment by again pointing out that I was the one requesting - repeatedly - that this issue be brought to the discussion page, and I made it clear that I was perfectly willing to work through it here. I objected to the tone the editor used, and I didn't "propose an alternative version of WP:BRD" but pointed out where I thought the guy citing it was wrong. (However, I can see that I was touchy about the peremptory editing, and it would have been most helpful for me to immediately bring it to the discussion page myself.) Let me REPEAT, when editing an article I am perfectly happy to consider all suggestions, correct any problems, and bow to consensus with respect to whether particular material should be included or not. Since consensus is not there for the inclusion of this material in any context, it's a dead issue as far as I'm concerned. I understand this is a super-controversial article, but honestly editors, please consider the attitude. Again, just my opinion. Buh bye.

(Not to nitpick, but it appears that over half my edits have occurred after 2006, focused on very particular subjects. But thanks for the goofy-grandma nod.) --EECEE (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not what you did, EECEE. The problem is that BRD is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert. You attempted to add original research into a BLP high profile article, and when you were reverted you didn't come to the Talk page to discuss, you kept trying to add the information in. The Discuss portion after the Revert doesn't mean "unless I think I'm right" or "except for EECEE. I don't want to get into the specifics here, as it seems obvious this isn't going to be included in the article, but I thought I would try to describe what other editors mean when they stated you were using an 'alternate version' of BRD. Good luck. Dave Dial (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dave Dial, and thanks especially for the great tone. Let me explain again that I was objecting to what I saw as a misrepresentation of the BRD policy by an editor who claimed it REQUIRES the reverted editor to immediately "'justify' the addition" on the discussion page. As I pointed out, according to the BRD page, it works both ways: "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing)."

To clarify, I am not saying BRD didn't or doesn't apply; I just don't think it applies in the way the editor claimed it did. As I said before, I accept that I probably should have been less touchy about the reversions and brought it to the discussion page myself. But I didn't appreciate that my repeated requests for discussion were met with a pretty personal and sarcastic initial comment on this page. Who would?

I'll stop now because I feel like most of my comments here have been on the defensive/whiny side, and that is definitely not my style. I realize that this is a super-sensitive page and some editors feel they have to be hyper-vigilant. But to be honest, there is a bit of a blowhard element that doesn't seem necessary. In my view, anyway. Good luck to you too. --EECEE (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

:) Let's try again, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No WD, that's not it - and I don't blame you for not wanting to read this section - the issue raised was an unsourced assertion that (a) Obama attended Columbia's School of General Studies (undergrad) which is not true to the best of my knowledge and every RS I've seen, and (b) that he graduated from GS "without Latin honors" and a lame "explanation" of why that doesn't actually mean anything. So in addition to being utterly unsourced, and as far as I can see in part factually incorrect, it is on the face of it an absurd addition, because no one ever claimed that he graduated from Columbia with honors, so in what universe would we say "although he did not graduate with honors". As suggested above, maybe we also should say he never performed a heart transplant. He did, in fact, graduate from Harvard Law magna cum laude, which we properly have in the article. The rest of the back and forth has to do with why we discuss changes on the talk page rather than edit war. There's nothing real here. Tvoz/talk 02:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see any reason to add this. It might has made sense to mention this if for example Obama lied about his educational accomplishments and was exposed, or the Rebublicans tried to use this in a major push to make Obama look unintelligent etc. Barring that is make as much sense to add this as any other thing he has not done.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What someone did NOT do is only an issue if there is a contrary claim or it is notable. Not making honors in a given subject is not notable. He also did not become an astronaut, race car driver, cowboy, run the 100 in 4 seconds, etc etc etc. There is a near infinite subset of things any given person did not do. To even consider adding this is base silliness. It's a puerile attempt to cast aspersions on the man. Really, do we have nothing better to discuss? I mean, is this really a precedent we want to start with for all presidents? I mean...do we want to get into everything George Bush didn't get honors in, subject by subject?:) Let's leave this partisan tit for tat at the door and try to be grown ups.204.65.34.189 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I find it very peculiar that Obama failed to graduate with honors from Columbia, and then somehow got into Harvard Law (incongruity #1), where he graduated magna cum laude three years later (incongruity #2). When you graduate without honors from Columbia, that means your GPA was 3.1 or lower. How would someone like that get into Harvard Law? And how would someone like that graduate magna cum laude three years later? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but not one really cares what you find to be peculiar. An encyclopedia is not a platform for personal opinion. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK click on the link. A notable, reliable source mentioning his graduation without honors from Columbia:

A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed.

So does anyone really care about what the New York Sun finds to be peculiar? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No. No they don't. The same with your original research on the non-issue. Since Obama has never claimed that he graduated with honors. So this has 0% chance of being in this article. As your comments on this Talk page reveal, there is very little if anything that you 'care about' that would be helpful to this article. Dave Dial (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful there. Please review WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:OWN. I eventually prevailed on the issue of the Libyan military action, Dave. I was right. You were wrong. Don't forget it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I think that perhaps you should review the first two policies yourself, based on your tedious Talk page comments on this page over the past months/years. As for the Libyan action, my stance was we should wait for more sourcing to see how it plays out, and we did. It was added without the POV silliness certain editors wanted. Or did you forget? Dave Dial (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Birth certificate

Birth certificate: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf Where put it? Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No where because it's blatantly obvious that he was born in the United States. This isn't an article for conspiracy theorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.89.44 (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That article is Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, that's the only correct article. SMP0328. (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'birthers' and Donald Trump's recent smear campaign offend me and the rest of the educated world. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the beliefs of the uneducated. The belief of many ignorant, willfully or otherwise, Americans is that Barrack Obama was not born in the U.S. and has refused to release his birth certificate. By some reports this ignorant section of the population numbers 25% of the U.S. population of 350,000,000. It is my personal belief that Misplaced Pages exists for the ignorant people in the world. A person who already knows Barrack Obama's life and history will not visit this Misplaced Pages page for those facts. Though it offends my pride I vote for putting a picture of the President's birth certificate on this page for the same reason the President has released his own birth certificate twice, to help settle this issue so we can move on to real issues.TheThomas (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The birth certificate has been available for viewing for literally years now. Is anyone going to be swayed by seeing it in this article, rather than just claiming it to be a fake posted by a "liberal controlled Misplaced Pages"? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Mention of conspiracy theories in the article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Template:Rfcid As a non-American who occasionally follows American political news, I was surprised to find that the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are not even mentioned in this article. After perusing prior discussions, it seems that some oppose their mention so as not to give these nonsensical theories more credibility. This, I believe, is a mistake. Given the immense ongoing media coverage of this issue, and that a quarter of the population appears to believe these theories, they have become a significant aspect of his presidency. Omitting any mention of them makes the article incomplete. It is also a disservice to the presumably many readers who want to know more about these theories (and how they have been discounted). These readers may have some indistinct ideas about the whole issue, but may not know how to search for "Birther", if they even know what this is. They will start looking for information here, in this article. I therefore propose that the conspiracy theories be briefly mentioned and their article linked to in some appropriate place in this article, and submit this question to an RfC.  Sandstein  22:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing, if taken from a constructive point of view (discounting those who will come here to defend them, claim liberal bias, claim white washing, and a whole bunch of other often used reasons for why the page does not reflect their view of Obama) you will find the vast majority of criticisms don't merit a mention on this page because they are of the category: "I don't like this man or his politics and because of that I will criticize everything he does, right down to his choice of dogs!" Next, there is this thing called weight and if these are mentioned or highlighted on this page then they would be given far more weight then then they deserve. If you really wanted to make mention this, then all it would need would be a line or two in the presidency section without mentioning any specific criticism and also from a neutral point of view that points out that where these criticisms are coming from. Brothejr (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, our coverage of political issues is not determined by our own opinion about the issue or how much weight it deserves, but by the coverage and weight given to it by reliable sources. But I agree that a neutral approach would be to merely mention that such theories exist, that they are relatively widespread among voters but that they are dismissed as nonsense by all reliable sources and authorities.  Sandstein  22:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is my take on it based on past experience with including conspiracies theories in a biography like this.. You get what I like to call "balloon syndrome" where adding that one line acknowledging the conspiracy theory in a main article causes editors to gradually add more and more to that original one line ("ballooning") until the point that you have a whole paragraph, and soon a whole section on the subject independent of what was originally a separate article. That naturally brings up WP:Undue Weight, which makes the issue seem larger than it really is.--FrankieG123 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Believe it or not, I don't remember whether this comment reiterates or contradicts my previously expressed opinions – possibly both – but I have to agree the time has come to include some small mention of the fringe theories here. When the President of the United States is forced to call a press conference to announce he has asked a state government to suspend their normal procedures and issue a special certified document not otherwise available to the general population, because coverage and speculation about the underlying claims have preempted and hindered debate on other issues of critical national importance, a sentence or two in the president's biography mentioning the theories and linking to the articles discussing them fully is not undue weight. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

FrankieG123 makes a valid, and worrisome, point. But this article has been under administrative restriction for quite a while, and has repelled an extensive number of attempts to add items that are questionable or of undue weight – including this one. I'm not sure having a couple of sentences, and a firm consensus that no more weight is deserved, would change things much. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If it happens, I suggest that this RFC be changed to discuss exactly what content should be added, and where (e.g. what goes in the lead?). That would make it harder for POV pushers to come later and say that "obviously" some inflated sentence must go in the lead, or whatever. I can see both sides: mentioning nonsense violates WP:UNDUE, yet as F&H says, the situation has changed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A link in a 'See also' section to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories would be sufficient, imo. Flatterworld (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To date editors here have rejected including this particular WP:FRINGE matter. Given that the existence of the birthers is clearly a notable subject, verifiable and sourced, not "news", could potentially be covered in neutral encyclopedic fashion, etc., three closely related threshold questions are (1) is this of sufficient WP:WEIGHT to include? (2) is this relevant to this particular article, and (3) where is the information best detailed and where is it best summarized - in this article, in the article devoted to the birthers, in the article about his presidency, about his public image, etc? Weighing heavily against putting it here, as opposed to elsewhere, this article is a biography, telling the story of the man, his life, and his career. Other things (his heritage, political positions, cabinet appointments, specific incidents, and so on) have their own articles, in fact several hundred articles at last count. They are linked or mentioned here only to the extent they are biographically relevant. I note that the matter isn't even mentioned (yet?) in Public image of Barack Obama, where it is more pertinent. Perhaps this particular smear has risen to the level that it has affected his life and career as much as the other things we mention, much as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth gets a mention in the John Kerry article (although not very well done there, in my opinion, and not a great model). If we do mention it, how, and where? I don't think the ramifications are known yet, and as they say Misplaced Pages does not have a deadline. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Aside from a See also entry and possibly in the image section, the only other place I can think of putting it is in the Early life and career section along the lines of "...a fact disputed by some."--NortyNort (Holla) 05:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose inclusion in "Early life and career". No matter how well we word it, I think that location gives the fringe theories some level of credibility. "See also" is good. If we want a short description of the phenomenon, "Public image" seems like the best place to have a brief explanation. Or just punt it over to the separate public image article; I'm sure a few of the editors here contribute over there too. But overall I think I favor something in this article – I really think it's at the point of having an effect on his total biography. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is time to include something. It must first be addressed in the public image article, and then briefly summarized in the public image section here. Any proposed wording (in both articles) would need to be the subject of a proper consensus-building discussion, and post-insertion monitoring will be essential in preventing "the crazies" from expanding it. And it should definitely not include any mention of the carnival barker. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To briefly explain what passes for my "logic" behind the gut feeling above, the "Early life" section deals with facts; the "Public image" section, by definition, deals instead with perceptions. The "birther" theories are not fact-based, and therefor fit better in a non-fact-based section. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I also agree with Sandstein that the article is incomplete without a mention of it. II | (t - c) 05:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Awhile ago I wrote a sample of what we might want to say about the birther issue. It's also on my talk page. The references are copied from the Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories page. I'm not eager to see the birther issue added, but it's not unreasonable to devote three sentences to it, in the spirit of George Washington's wooden teeth:

(in the cultural and political image section, no need for a new heading)

An oddity of Obama's public image is a set of persistent rumours that he was not born in Hawaii but in Kenya, and therefore is ineligible to be president, or that his citizenship has somehow lapsed. Believers claim that conspirators faked Obama's birth certificate and birth announcements. The rumor has persisted since mid-2008 and was an issue in early 2011 for contenders for the Republication Presidential nomination.

CouldOughta (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Might as well explain the logic. Mention that it was an issue for Republicans because that was the high point of its relevance (so far). Refer to it as rumor rather than conspiracy theory since the the rumor and discussion far exceeds the actual believers in a conspiracy. No mention that Obama released his "long form" certificate since there's no indication yet that doing so has had much effect, plus it would mean adding a fourth sentence, which is really too much on the issue. Call it an "oddity" because so far, that's all it has been. CouldOughta (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the lede to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and you might understand why I believe a simple See also link is the appropriate way to handle this. A long summary is Undue weight, any short summary is misleading. Those truly interesting should go to the specific article. We should provide the link. Beyond that, we're on the thin ice of making this main article fall into tabloid land. Flatterworld (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't there's a historical consensus among the sources yet on the nature of the kerfuffle, and even if there were it is a matter of opinion and not something Misplaced Pages ought to endorse in its official voice. How would you introduce it? "One political smear brought up by Obama's detractors was that...", "One persistent urban myth", "One cultural phenomenon that some have blamed on fear of the other or even racism is that..." To state these endorses them; to omit them leaves things incomplete or imbalanced. Even something seemingly innocuous like "oddity" is a matter of opinion - some may think it's serious, others may think it is not odd. The only way to do it, I think, is to avoid adorning the facts with a narrative summary, just go out and say it: "Beginning with viral emails in 2006, fringe theories arose that Obama was secretly Muslim, not born in the United States, and/or otherwise ineligible or unqualified to be President." That's just dummy text and probably needs a second sentence about impact and reaction, we would have to think it through. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't introduce it at all, just put this or a similar paragraph at the end of the current Cultural & Political Image section; it doesn't deserve a subject heading. Nor, I think, does it deserve any more analysis or description. As you say, to ascribe it to racism or call it a smear is a judgment call. I guess I disagree that to omit such things is imbalanced-- the issue should be treated on the level of George Washington's teeth or Harry Truman hiding aliens at Area 51, just note it as an oddity of the office of the President. And finally, perhaps, put an end to this issue being repeatedly brought up on this page. Maybe:

Starting during the primaries in mid-2008 a set of persistent rumours developed that Obama was not born in Hawaii but in Kenya and therefore is ineligible to be president, or that his citizenship has somehow lapsed. Believers claim that conspirators faked Obama's birth certificate and birth announcements. The rumor was an embarrassment in early 2011 for contenders for the Republication Presidential nomination, as well as a source for political humor.

This is shorter and omits the judgmental word "oddity", which I shouldn't have used. The final ref. is a rough-in. CouldOughta (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the above, but see the use of "embarrassment" as even more judgmental than "oddity".--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

True, but "oddity" was my judgment, making me guilty of POVing, whereas "embarassment" is from the pundits (although, I notice, the word isn't in the particular articles I linked to, so I have to find a better one).CouldOughta (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the entry as well. Substitutes for "embarrassment": "dilemna", "predicament", "quandary"...significant "topic", "concern", "issue", "matter".--NortyNort (Holla) 12:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I like that phrasing. Although neutral wording would be very difficult, I'd like to see even more coverage in the future if possible, as these controversies & conspiracy theories around Obama have attracted so much attention from so many sources. bobrayner (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A small suggested tweak:

During the primaries in mid-2008, a set of persistent rumors began to circulate, claiming that Obama is ineligible to be president because he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, or that his citizenship has somehow lapsed. Proponents of the rumors claimed that conspirators faked Obama's birth certificate and birth announcements. In early 2011, the rumors received additional attention as they became an issue among contenders for the Republication 2012 presidential nomination, as well as a source for political humor

I also took the liberty of bolding the original proposal above for ease in locating it. If someone sees this as an egregious violation of WP:TPG, feel free to undo that part. Also, for ease of evaluating the entire proposal(s), I'm inserting a reflist in a separate subsection below. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing "believers" to "proponents" because it's not clear that everyone who spread the rumors actually believed them... also to past tense to make clear that was the original claim. Perhaps "some" should be added as a modifier, as there are many specific theories that birthers espouse (e.g. he was born in HI but is not a citizen), and they have varied over time. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I just don't think adding anything at all about the birther movement to this particular article is a good idea. There are several other areas where criticism and controversy about Obama are far more valid and notable, and receive far less coverage in the article mainspace (or none at all). Remember that "some" is a weasel word and it will be hard to describe the birthers' arguments and all the salient events in a single paragraph, without using at least one or two weasel words. That amount of space would be better invested on Wright/Ayers/Rezko. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the above very long back and forth is exactly why we have been correct to leave this out of the main article. User:FrankieG123 has it exactly right way upstream - there is a great danger of what he called "ballooning" here, taking this from a phrase to a couple of sentences to a section, and so on: undue weight to the max. This is still first and foremost a biography of Obama's life and career, and it is by definition in danger of expanding out of control, which we have to try to hold in check. The birther fringe theories are just that, fringe conspiracy theories, desperate for legitimizing, and we should not do that here. We have the long separate article where this is discussed, and time will tell if the release of the long form birth certificate and subsequent unrelated events will make this story go away in a puff of smoke as it looks like it might. Last week, with all of the Trump noise, this was perhaps starting to seem to be Very Important to Obama's story. Does it still? Will it next week or next month or next year? Has this really affected his actual life and career in a lasting way? I remain unconvinced, and am very much against adding "just a few" sentences here, or highlighting it as a "see also". It is a slippery slope, and I think we continue to be right in leaving it out. I've been editing this article since 2006 and have seen many arguments made for and against adding things that were seen at the time as central and urgent to include in a major or minor way, yet I think that time has proven us right in leaving them out. Tvoz/talk 02:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It has shown itself as a significant and notable part of his image, the recent renewal of controversy and jokes at the correspondence dinner confirm that. I don't think a fear of "ballooning" is a sole valid reason to keep text out of an article. Such a fear can remove due text from being in any article. If it belongs, it belongs. If we reach consensus here, it is up to editors to maintain that in the future.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Only with trepidation can I bring myself to disagree with long-time Obama editor Tvoz, but the birther meme has persisted a long time now, rising and falling irregularly in the public mind. I would imagine that a fair number of people have come to the Obama page in recent months to find out "what's all this stuff about Obama's birth certificate?" and found nothing. If we witness ballooning of the entry, I'll join the chorus supporting removal, but for now, let's try putting it into the main Presidental article, along with Warren G. Harding's White House closet trysts.

I like the edits to the proposed text.CouldOughta (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a notable part of his image, Norty, - it's a set of fringe conspiracy theories that have gotten flurries of media attention, but have nothing behind them, no true long-lasting effect that we know of and, of course, no truth. His graying hair also was the subject of jokes at the correspondent's dinner - since when is that a barometer of notability? But we'll see what happens - I think we all agree that nothing should be added to the article unless and until we have consensus on whether we're doing it, and if so, its wording and placement. The proposed text, for example, says nothing about the untruth of the "rumors", and that's not acceptable - this is part of the problem in trying to boil down that long article into a few sentences, and part of why I object to it being incorporated into the text here. Even with the full length article, and plenty of room for disquisition, there are pages and pages of discussion about phrases and words. This is a daunting, and I think fruitless, task. A note to Sandstein's opening point and CouldOughta - the Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article had around half a million views in April alone, so apparently people aren't having that much trouble finding it. (And I'm laughing at the idea that I inspire trepidation. Finally!) Tvoz/talk 05:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it has persisted makes it notable and it is part of his image to a select but significant group. I think there should be a mention, it is just a question of how. I do agree that after the latests birth certificate release, it will be interesting to see how/if the conspiracies persist.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've waited to comment in this section, waiting for reasons for and against. It seems that most(is not all) of the reasons editors want to include this is because it passes the notability threshold. Well, that's an argument for an article itself, which we already have two, plus two children articles. So what weight do we have to have in order to pass the POV threshold for mentioning a lie|hoax in a prominent BLP article? I am not entirely opposed to a link to the conspiracy theory article, but I am not sure if there should be any wording directing people there, other than a "See here for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories". To include it in the article with any more wording than that, we would have to identify that the "persistent rumors" have been totally disproved and are patently false. Otherwise, it is unacceptable to include in this BLP article. Dave Dial (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is seems to me to be a no-brainer. They should be mentioned, probably in the Cultural and political image section. A simple refutation of the claims is all that is called for, with a wiki-link to the full article. Leaving this out smacks of Whitewashing, which is silly considering how ridiculous the claims are. Colincbn (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

On more reflection I can certainly understand, and am beginning to agree with, the reasons for leaving them out of the main body of text. Some have suggested putting them in the "See also" section, which might be the best option (see: Apollo 11). The problem is there ain't one. Colincbn (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

References for RFC proposals

1. Etheridge, Eric (July 22, 2009). "'Birther' Boom". New York Times.
2. ^ Barr, Andy (December 7, 2008). "Whisper campaign persists despite election". The Politico. Retrieved December 10, 2008.
3. "Donald Trump, Whoopi Goldberg, Spar Over Obama on 'The View'". The Wall Street Journal. March 24, 2011. Retrieved March 25, 2011.
4. Marr, Kendra (March 14, 2011). "Michele Bachmann: No birth flap for me". Politico.
5. Etheridge, Eric (July 22, 2009). "'Birther' Boom". New York Times.
6. "Donald Trump, Whoopi Goldberg, Spar Over Obama on 'The View'". The Wall Street Journal. March 24, 2011. Retrieved March 25, 2011.
7. Marr, Kendra (March 14, 2011). "Michele Bachmann: No birth flap for me". Politico.
8. Template:Cite http://www.metro.us/newyork/entertainment/article/847634--the-word-seth-meyers-obama-dish-out-jokes
9. Etheridge, Eric (July 22, 2009). "'Birther' Boom". The New York Times.
10. "Donald Trump, Whoopi Goldberg, Spar Over Obama on 'The View'". The Wall Street Journal. March 24, 2011. Retrieved March 25, 2011.
11. Marr, Kendra (March 14, 2011). "Michele Bachmann: No birth flap for me". Politico.
12. Robinson, Dorothy (May 01, 2011). "The Word: Seth Meyers, Obama dish out jokes". Metro New York. Retrieved May 2, 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Osama bin Laden is dead

I suggest a short reference to this wonderful news be added to the article. Later, that reference can be added upon. This article should not be ignoring this historical moment. SMP0328. (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Already there! "wonderful news"? - that's POV! </sarcasm>.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, NortyNort. It makes Obama look good, therefore it's put into the article (and the lede) within hours, without any objections. Only when something happens that might cast Dear Leader in a bad light is there any resistance .... no matter how many notable, reliable sources run with it as their top news story, day after day. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is no comparison between the relative significance of birthers pushing lies, and the death of OBL. It is standard at Misplaced Pages that conspiracy theories are not promoted by giving them undue mention in main articles (see WP:ONEWAY for a start). Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we trying to bolster the election?

I find it a bit POV to see the sentence about catching bin Laden in the lede to be the sentence right before it is stated that Obama is running for re-election. Since it has been stated by some newspapers that Obama is probably going to try to use this to form his campaign around, it seems almost like we're trying to do that for him by organizing the lede like that. Can't we re-arrange this somehow? Silverseren 14:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. It's like Mark Twain (and a million others) said about the weather. If you don't like the lede, stick around a few minutes, somebody will change it. But really, it's not unusual to see a few editors jumping in to add the latest news, often without fully thinking through where it gets put, if it duplicates something, if it sounds POV. Misplaced Pages culture discourages that but keeping up with the news cycle is not going to go away and it's pretty harmless when it happens. It gets fixed when the news reports settle down. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of rearranging the lede a bit in response to Silverseren's concerns. But i've looked away for a few minutes, so someone may have reverted me .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Another editor copy-edited the lede and move it back. So, while keeping the improved lede, I re-moved the re-election sentence to where you had put it. Hopefully it sticks this time. Silverseren 00:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Proper journalistic form says that we should identify Osama bin Laden rather than just use his name:"...forces killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan". Maybe "killed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden..."? CouldOughta (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. The most recent piece of foreign policy news is placed next to the most forward-looking piece of news, his (obvious) intention to seek reelection. When the most recent news had been unresolved and open for interpretation as to whether it was good or bad, it was fine to immediately precede the election announcement, but when a newer piece of news happened to be spectacularly successful, a couple of editors suddenly consider it POV? That's the sort of thing I can understand raising an eyebrow when it comes the week before the election, but the only POV you're seeing is in your own minds. Twain's comments are apt to the news more than the editing here, in that we're addressing what actually happens in foreign policy news. Should that continue to be good, it will be the news that is conspiring to help Obama, not us.

The ultimate irony is that the stubborn revert of this move puts the reelection announcement next to one of the earliest details of his presidency, the spectacular honor of a Nobel Peace Prize. Explain precisely how it is that passively winning a Nobel Peace Prize is appropriate to precede a campaign announcement but actively winning a military victory is not?

Silver Seren, I request that you revert your own edit to the way it existed prior to today's news, in an acknowledgement that yours was the third insistent revert in favor of this POV editor, as there is no convincing argument made here that what he saw as POV actually is, and no consensus to act like there has been. You say in that third revert that "other editors" agree with you in this discussion, but I only see the POV editor who initiated the edit you have reverted agreeing with you. Meanwhile this move was reverted by two editors who found no merit to it, and another editor is disagreeing with you here (with Wikidemon vaguely refraining from a specific stance). That's one with you and three against, prior to my weighing in, the way I count it. Abrazame (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The lede should be organized into related sections as it is. Political status, such as Senator information, his presidential election, and his desire to run for a new bid is one such paragraph. Then, a second on his economic policy and then a third on his foreign policy. I don't disagree that the political status paragraph can't be improved from how it currently is, but we shouldn't split re-election into a single sentence by itself in the lede. Per WP:LEDE, we've already pushed the info to five paragraphs when it says that only four should be used. Considering the length of the article, adding a fifth paragraph is understandable, but adding a sixth paragraph consisting of a single sentence is not. Changing it the way I have actually falls in line with what is described as policy for the lede of articles. There is no reason that the re-election sentence should be coming after foreign policy information as it is. Silverseren 05:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Without looking into the details or consulting the manual of style here there are only two good ways to organize things, really. Thematically by the underlying subject, and chronologically. And within a theme (or a chronological period), sub-organized again by one or or the other. Either choice could have its flow issues. Typically a bio is organized by major themes, each of which revolves around a life period, e.g. early life, career (sub-divided by era), works, public image, legacy... And within each it is roughly chronological. And then the order in the lede usually mirrors the order in the body. There's no reason it has to be that way, it just seems to make things readable. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But if one way seems to insinuate a POV, even if we don't mean it to, then I think it's better to just do it the other way and fix the issue altogether. Furthermore, I really don't think it looks good to have the single re-election sentence standing off on its own anyways. There's no reason for it and it just makes the lede more against the MOS. It's better to fold it into one of the prior paragraphs and the only one it fits into was the one it was put in by Phoenix and myself. It also fits the internal chronology of the paragraphs by doing this, as you were saying. Silverseren 06:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For some reason you are quibbling with vague comments by Wikidemon and shifting your argument, denying your original post and section title, and fibbing about consensus here, all the while avoiding addressing my points: this pointy user and you saw no POV when it was a limited military operation that was ongoing, in Libya, but you suddenly saw POV when it was a hugely successful military operation that was completed, in Pakistan. Clearly the POV at play here is an anti-Obama POV on the part of Phoenix and Winslow, and it is one which you are doing a bad job of enabling. I find it particularly egregious POV that you would title this section with the allegation that it "we" are "bolstering" an election that is seventeen months away, without a single declared opponent as of yet. Abrazame (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole section seems absolutely void of real issues by the OP and PaW. It's pretty absurd that a user would insist on inserting the UN backed Libyan action into the Lede, and then state the ordered attack of the OBL compound is POV because it happened to follow the announcement of the 2012 Obama re-election campaign in order of events. I have no problem arranging the Lede into any of the suggested manners in which Wikidemon presented, but the complaints by the OP are absurd here. Trying to win Obama an election.....indeed. This is the bio of the man, and there is little doubt that both the re-election campaign and the ordered attack on the OBL compound are significant events(especially compared to the Libyan action), even though I would prefer to wait for things to sort out before adding them into this particular article. Dave Dial (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree as well. It is was it is; the events coincide and I don't see POV in the placement. There is no doubt that the OBL death will be a selling point during the campaign.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Something else to keep in mind is that nearly all of the other articles on presidents, such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all include info about their respectful re-election campaigns after the details of their first terms are written, not right next to the sentence about their first campaign. Since their appears to be agreement that it was fine prior to Silver seren's edit, shouldn't we change it back to where it was prior to his edit?--Joker123192 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't have a single sentence off by its own in the lede of an article such as this, especially not when giving it its own paragraph further violates WP:LEDE. Silverseren 22:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Recentism

Hey all, I don't want to bring anyone down, but the OBL death section is a classic example of recentism. Remember, WP is not the news. I've tagged the section. I'd be happy to see another editor delete it or pare it down to a single sentence. NickCT (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As a tag on a still-featured article I think it's confusing to readers and won't help in the editing process. The talk page is an adequate forum for discussing what if anything to say about Bin Laden. My two cents is that the section is fairly necessary as a defining moment in the war on terror, a direct executive responsibility of the President (unlike most), where the president's role has received massive detailed coverage by the sources. It's there by consensus, it is not overly detailed, and it is hardly a minor or recent issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried a rewrite for the section from the perspective of its placement in Obama's bio - see what you think. Bear in mind it still is properly only a short summary with a pointer to the longer article. I also changed the header to be more specific, rather than the more general "anti-terrorism". Although I try to be mindful of recentism concerns, I think in this case it is justified as what is indeed a defining moment in the fight against terrorism, and I don't see that paring it down to one sentence is called for or useful in promoting understanding. Tvoz/talk 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Not only do I agree, but I took the same approach as Tvoz and was saving it as his version hit the page. As I explained in the original EC edit summary (my apologies for not re-pasting it into the summary for my actual edit), "Removing tag per talk; edits—this is about his work, his decision, and its outcome, not its announcement".

I have placed my edit into the record not as a refutation of Tvoz' work, but as an alternative to be discussed further. One reason that I continued with my edit is that my version is 350 bytes shorter, a nod to the OP; another reason is because in that shorter space it gives more detail about Obama's work, the decision to go with a surgical strike to remove bin Laden and intel from the compound rather than just obliterate it all with no proof, and because it refrains from discussing poll ratings, of which it is too soon to gauge. (Polls generally take a couple days to write and a couple days to compile.) If the latter goes up high enough or long enough to be of biographical note, we can add that to this or the polling section. But I repeat, I invite comment about the two edits and did not intend to simply remove Tvoz' work, put to place mine alongside for comparison. Abrazame (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Abrazame, and thanks for the above - mine was a stab at it and I'm sure improvable. Will look at yours shortly. I also think it would be a good idea to have some rewriting of the Libya section to emphasize Obama's role and statements and reactions to the events in the context of Obama's bio. Tvoz/talk 18:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think its clear now that what we wound up putting in for Libya was recentism itself, and it's time to revisit that. But I'll be out for awhile and perhaps the rest of the day, so I promise no EC if you take a shot at it in the next few hours! Abrazame (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"it is hardly a minor or recent issue" - I couldn't disagree more. In the grand scheme of Obama's presidency, this is most certainly both a recent and minor issue.

My argument doesn't seem to be picking up much traction here, so I'll drop it; however, I can pretty much guarantee that as soon as all the excitement dies down and level heads return, this section will be removed as recentism. It's disappointing that WP is so subject to recentism. It's darn unecyclopedic (whatever that might mean). We wikipedians should be above the short and fickle memory span that afflicts the general populace. NickCT (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't perceive the killing of Bin Laden - an order given by the President after four national security meetings, and covered by tens of thousands of sources already - as a major event of historical significance to the Presidency, perhaps you are not seeing things through the same lens. There is always a "current events" problem with quality and perspective, and a tendency for such sections to fill with minutiae and balloon out of proportion, but that's a different thing entirely than saying that the event is too insignificant to cover. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"given by the President after four national security meetings, and covered by tens of thousands of sources" - This could be said for any number of topics that aren't covered in this article.

"than saying that the event is too insignificant to cover" - Not what I'm saying. I just don't think it deserves its own section. Pare it down to a sentence or two and I'd say that was WP:DUE weight. NickCT (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point and agree with it about many things that could be added and are best off waiting before doing so - but sometimes the significance of an event seems so apparent immediately that its absence would raise more questions than its inclusion - and I think this is one of them. Yes, it's a judgment call, but supported by other editors here. If it turns out not to be, I will support removal. I would probably not, for example, add this to the bios of other administration officials at this time, because no clear connection to them is being widely reported - could be, but I haven't seen it yet. But this is a major development in which Obama reportedly was directly involved, and third party sources all over the place are saying so, and had the day gone differently it would have been seen as his failure. I expect this will be inextricably linked to Obama's presidency, which is why I think it is correct to be here now. Tvoz/talk 18:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"sometimes the significance of an event seems so apparent immediately" - Sure. Sometimes stuff is obviously important immediately after it occurs. But let me ask you this, when it comes time for BO to leave office, do you think commentators are really going to look back on this single event as a major part of his presidency, or a footnote?

"I expect this will be inextricably linked to Obama's presidency" - We'll see..... When this section gets removed 3 months from now, you mind if come back and gloat a little? NickCT (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course it depends on what else happens between now and when he leaves office - I can't predict whether something bigger than the killing of the symbol of 9/11 will happen, and for all of our sakes - having nothing to do with this article or my personal views - I hope nothing bigger does happen, because the only things bigger than 9/11 that come to mind are events that I don't think any of us would want to see happen. (With the possible exception of a visit from friendly extraterrestrials, of course.) 9/11 has not receded in importance after 10 years, and the symbolism of the killing of bin Laden - not his death by natural causes, but his targeted death by a US operation - I do believe will play an important role in the definition of Obama's presidency in history, at least regarding foreign policy, terrorism, etc. So sure, feel free to come back and let's see where we are. Tvoz/talk 20:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"whether something bigger than the killing of the symbol of 9/11 will happen, and for all of our sakes ...... I hope nothing bigger does happen" - That seems like a cynical outlook. Something bigger in a good sense could happen right? Obama might figure out a cure for cancer for instance (purely hypothetically speaking. Wouldn't that be bigger?

"9/11 has not receded in importance after 10 years" - That's such an awkward subjective statement, it's hard to know how to approach it. Couldn't one argue that it has declined in notability due to the decline in the number of people writing about it? NickCT (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(To NickCT et al) A CNN anchor was reporting it this morning (more than once, meaning it was written for her, not merely an off-the-cuff personal opinion) as both a defining moment in Obama's presidency and as a turning point in the mood of the country. While that notably and reliably sourced assessment may at the moment be recentism, the planning and successful outcome of the decapitation of the inspirational leader behind 9/11 is by no means that, nor is it minor. Whether you were for or against one or more of the past decade's wars, and from wherever on the political spectrum you stand, this was the primary objective behind our military actions this past decade: to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. It is as notable as the Iraq war if not more so inasfar as it was conceived to lead to the capture and (eventual) killing of a leader who was a real and imminent threat to the U.S., and you will note that said war is amply addressed in George W. Bush's biography. If anything, we might expound on how we didn't have to go into a full-on, decade-long war with Pakistan and lose American lives and treasure to do so, should that be notably and reliably sourced as a contrast (and in fact to some degree it is by a presidential historian in one of my sources for the section). Abrazame (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"It is as notable as the Iraq war if not more so" - Really? Really? Let's see.... Iraq war - Hundreds of thousands dead, trillions of dollars spent, millions of articles and sources devoted to it. Killing of OBL - One dead, few million spent, and after next month, likely no more articles written. Perhaps you mispoke in suggesting the two are of similar notability? NickCT (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

9/11 was a more pivotal event in American political, social, and perhaps even military / security history, judged from an American point of view, and to a large extent the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are subtopics. The economic effect of 9/11, minus these two wars, is likely trillions of dollars as well. It is too early to know, but the assassination of Bin Laden may be the other bookend to 9/11. It is certainly generating more intense news coverage than any event of the Iraq war. It isn't really up to Wikipedian's to debate the importance of terrorism vis-a-vis conventional warfare - as the name implies it is built largely on psychological manipulation rather than large scale aggression. Society will decide how to react unfolding events, and Misplaced Pages will report society's decision. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, OBL wasn't 9/11. OBL was OBL. 9/11 was perpetrated and planned by others.... Sure, OBL might have been the symbolic representation most American's associated with 9/11, but we should probably keep in mind that this laying of blame was probably more of a simplistic, hyperbolic "evil arch nemesis" mental construct than a level headed attribution of responsibility.

Additionally, calling Iraq and Afghanistan "subtopics" is like calling World War I a subtopic of the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. While it might be true in a loose sense, it gives a specious feeling of notability.

Regardless, all these debates are academic. We should simply observe WP:V, WP:NOTABLE here. In three months or so, we should search engine test sources for things like "Obama health care" and "Obama Iraq" etc.... At that time, I gaurentee the number of sources written for "Obama death of Osama bin laden" will pale in comparison to other subjects. NickCT (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? If you read the Osama Bin Laden article, or the 911 attacks article, it states that OBL was responsible, at least in part. He was the leader of Al-Qaeda that planned, trained and funded the attacks. I usually always want to wait to add events into articles, so the reliable sources are given a chance to sort out the facts. I take that stance on this issue also, but fully acknowledge that the majority of editors would rather add notable events and re-work the wording as more sourcing occurs. That's the consensus working of many of the articles on Misplaced Pages. Even so, the claims you are making here, and that this is not a notable event, is just mystifying. The attack of the OBL compound in Pakistan is a very notable event, and when we look back several months from now it will still be a very notable event. It will only grow and become more clear in importance for this particular BLP article. Dave Dial (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"this is not a notable event, is just mystifying" - It's probably mystifying b/c that's not what I said and was not what I was claiming. Read up on WP:recentism and come back.

"it states that OBL was responsible, at least in part." - What did I say that suggested this wasn't true? Of course he was partly responsible. But the point people were making above was that OBL's death is very significant b/c OBL perpetrated 9/11 which was a significant event. I was just pointing out the flaw in that logic. NickCT (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I reworked the paragraph again, combining elements of Abrazame's and mine - I had problems with a few of the details in the last version, but think this is now consistent with the sources. I know it's a bit longer, but I think it is a fair summary of the parts of the main article that relate to Obama while giving enough context about the events for readers here. Happy to discuss, as always - it's a work in progress. I haven't forgotten about the Libya section needing work but I'm not as tuned into those events so I may not be the best person to do a more Obama-centric version - maybe someone will step up to that. Tvoz/talk 01:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

African American

Dead links

Just to say that there are six dead links in the article's references, which would cause it to fail if reviewed as featured. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The "dead link" tags should be next to the numerical markers in the article, instead of only within the footnotes. The way it's done now, the tags are noticeable only when you scroll down to the References section. SMP0328. (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Dead links#Keeping dead links Fat&Happy (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you responding to the OP or me? SMP0328. (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry, I guess it could be read either way. You. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You clarified your comment, now I'll do so regarding mine. I was saying what I believe should be done and have seen done previously. I know that's not policy. The current policy results in dead link tags being mostly invisible to the average editor. These tags should be as visible as cite tags; that would increase the probability of dead links being replaced. SMP0328. (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see your point; maybe my view is distorted by my constant use of "Popups" to preview things, but I don't see it as a major impediment. OTOH, I see "dead link" tags interspersed with the text as being a distraction to the non-editor users who come here just to read the information. Just MHO. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of lead paragraphs

I combined the last three paragraphs in the lead to make the article comply with MOS:LEAD, which states that no lead should have more than four paragraphs. Hekerui (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that MOS:LEAD is just a guideline, so if a consensus is formed amongst editors that the previous arrangement was better, there is no reason why Hekerui's edit cannot be reverted. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion to the extra paragraphs - clarity trumps a guideline, and this is a textbook case for not slavishly following one. Tvoz/talk 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be the case that the lede is too long, though, and as a featured article it's probably supposed to stick to the guidelines unless there's a good reason otherwise (which we should document for the next FA review). Not saying that it is too long, just that it could be. If it is, simply removing breaks to make one long paragraph out of 3 probably isn't enough. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the lede could be streamlined, but eliminating paragraph breaks didn't do it. Tvoz/talk 06:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

From the main article: "Reaction to the announcement was positive across party lines, including from predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and from many countries around the world."

One would thought that this is true (so positive reactions from everybody), but if you visit: Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden you read this: "His killing was condemned, however, by Venezuela, the Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Taliban."

So my suggestion to include this also. Otherwise you continue to provide only a whitewashed/unbalanced article on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.190.36 (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. To which American party do the Muslim Brotherhood, Taliban, Chavez administration and Hamas belong? - Wikidemon (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone to, now I have to follow. The word "many" still applies when subtracting Venezuela from the list of supporting countries as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I also feel that Venezuela, along with a few muslim organizations, does not delegitimize the use of the word 'many.' WPxOG (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Most liberal senator

Actually according to: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/08fringes.pdf. Obama was not one of the most liberal, he was the most liberal Senator for 2007. Could that change please be made. Rodchen (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that portion of that section should be re-worded, but not in the manner you are requesting. The National Journal rankings are subjective and have been criticized by various reliable sources. In fact, the then editor of the magazine stated in 2004 that it's rankings should not be used because they are "sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong". Coincidently, the magazine also rated Senator John Kerry as "the most liberal Senator" during the 2004 Presidential election. PolitiFact rates this as "barely true", just because the magazine did in fact rate Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, but then goes on to explain the rating is essentially meaningless because of the subjective manner used to make that determination. So yes, that portion should be changed, but I would suggest it either be removed or have more objective wording based on these sources I have presented and the fact that even the editor of the magazine is critical of using the ratings in a political manner. Dave Dial (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If the survey is unreliable we can't self source it for background info about who Obama is as we now do. We can't begin to fit in the stuff that's actually true, much less the dubious stuff. Saying that he was described as X, but he probably isn't, has little relevance to the article without context. I do know that some of his opponents latched onto that and used it as a campaign point against him, but sourcing their statements is also unreliable. The only way I could see keeping it is if we have third party neutral reliable sources that say the ranking of Obama as the most liberal senator was subjective, but the ranking -- as opposed to actually being liberal -- became significant to him. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Any 'ranking' on being liberal or conservative is of course subjective. That is why one quotes those who do the ranking. But since the article quote and cites nationaljournal, then the article should at least site it correctly, and state that they ranked him as the most liberal senator in 2007. Please see the reference. One may disagree with the ranking, but the statement 'According to National Journal Obama was ranking the most liberal Senator in 2007' is a statement of fact. And to say 'According to National Journal Obama was one of the most liberal senators' is actually hidding part of the truth. Rodchen (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The placement of this disputed factoid as one of five sentences summing up his senate career gives it undue weight and I'm going to remove it on that basis. The place for a full discussion of the factoid - including Obama's comments disputing it which are absent from this section - is probably the Senate Career article and not this one unless the Senate section is greatly expanded. Gamaliel (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you think the same way about the sentence 'He enjoyed high popularity as senator with a 72% approval in Illinois' especially since the article is actually dealing with MN senators and not Obama. Rodchen (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the issue that the 72% approval is subjective, disputed, or discredited? If so then yes, the mere fact that there exists a questionable poll would be of little WP:WEIGHT. On the other hand, if the point is that the high approval rating reported is poorly sourced or unimportant that's a separate question, perhaps that should be removed too. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Transparency

I tried to add a section about transparency in the discussion page which was deleted and accused me of being a troll. since it was such a big part of his campaign, shouldn't it also be part of his wp article? To be clear, the Obama administration is less transparent than the Bush administration The administration promised in 2009 to release visitor logs to the White House. According to a report by the Center for Public Integrity, to date only 1% of 500,000 meetings from the president's first eight months have been released, and thousands of known visitors (including lobbyists) are missing from the lists. 325 Freedom of Information Act requests, and some 45 FOIA lawsuits in federal court http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703849204576303272813116318.html President Obama has abolished the position in his White House dedicated to transparency and shunted those duties into the portfolio of a partisan ex-lobbyist who is openly antagonistic to the notion of disclosure by government and politicians. http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/468316 “It’s always troubling when you have the administration deciding what’s fair in the media or what is unfair because that clearly does create a situation where they are trying to select the coverage that they’re going to receive,” said Boston University College of Communication dean Tom Fiedler. “It’s always troubling when you have the administration deciding what’s fair in the media or what is unfair because that clearly does create a situation where they are trying to select the coverage that they’re going to receive,” said Boston University College of Communication dean Tom Fiedler http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0519headline_goes Darkstar1st (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You're dreaming if you think the guardians of this article will let something like that in. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a probama propaganda piece -- and no dissent is allowed. In fact, if you dissent you might find yourself investigated for being a sock puppet like I did. Ikilled007 (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

been there done that, after an ip scan i was cleared. I believe in the structure of wp and feel confident with enough effort we can add balence to this and many other articles, i count your response as a "yes" to adding transparency section. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

maybe we could call it Public_image_and_perception like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/George_W._Bush#Public_image_and_perception Darkstar1st (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

One could start with the government transparency websites listed here. I'm pretty sure all of them started during the Obama administration. I also remember the Sunlight Foundation was recently campaigning to keep the funding for these websites, but the Republicans voted to greatly reduce it. Flatterworld (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

thx flatter! so we have 3 for and 0 against the section so far. ill wait a day or so before adding the section with consensus to allow time for dissent. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This one may have to wait for a retrospective view towards the end of his term, but there is some significant nonpartisan commentary and analysis that Obama's administration did not deliver what people expected based on the promises of transparency. Specifically, the administration has set up and streamlined a number of processes for putting government records online but it has not expanded the scope of records that are disclosed. Some records are public information in theory (e.g. appointment records, financial disclosures) but are not easy to get at all. I'm trying to track down a radio news report I heard on this. It's potentially significant in the sense that if the administration carries through it will be one of their hallmark accomplishments, but if it's business as usual it won't. But as of yet I don't think there are enough sources to establish enough weight to talk about it in this article. I'd take it up in the "presidency of..." article and see what they think of it there. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

that is not a problem, there are scores of sources from the left and right concerning his transparency, here is one from lawrence odonnell, a socialist commentator on msnbc: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/odonnell-chides-obama-whi_n_864064.html Oddly enough, the sunshine award was awarded to Obama in a closed door meeting and the attendees have yet to be added to the visitors list records, much to the chagrin of those awarding it to him. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. He made a huge issue out of being the "most transparent" president ever. How he has been viewed regarding this issue should be included. Arzel (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

First, your initial edit was trolling, and had no realistic chance of producing anything worthwhile for this or any article. Asking for an online internet poll on a local conservative website to be included was ...not helpful to this article. Now, what I see you suggesting is adding is two(1,2) conservative opinion pieces(where only one has anything to do with transparency, and the other(Washington Examiner) is not a reliable source anyway. And then another link you claim has something to do with transparency from the Huffington Post, citing Lawrence O'Donnell, in which he chides the Administration for blocking the Boston Herald from the poll reporters because they claimed bias. That's the same story as the other link you gave, but has nothing to do with transparency. Also, you include Flatterworld in your push for inserting this into this article, when the editor obviously is not agreeing with you. Finally, in an effort to include this as a section, you suggest that we make a "new" section like the one in the Public image and perception section. Which makes me wonder if you have even read this article, since we have a Cultural and political image section in this very article, with links to a whole article titled Public image of Barack Obama. In any case, I think we should wait before adding anything about this particular issue, though it may be in this article at some time. Probably not as you are presenting it, but in the article nonetheless. Dave Dial (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

ill mark you down as a "no". One could start with the government transparency websites, sounds like a yes from flatter, did you see his response? are you sure a poll from the liberal newspaper BOSTON herald is trolling? so that is 4 yes and one no. still time to be heard, ill wait one more day before accepting the current score as consensus. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding of consensus is not accurate. None of those supporting your proposal have offered any argument in support of it, and more importantly, have not addressed the issues raised in any but a superficial manner (hint: articles do not "balance" commentary that fails WP:RS with other commentary). Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

ill put you down as a no also, 4 to 2 now. would you approve of this as a source? http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/19/obamacare-transparency-fail-who%E2%80%99s-still-waiting-for-waivers-and-who-got-denied-obama-won%E2%80%99t-tell-us/ are you interested to learn why 38 of 204 waivers recently went to fru-fru and chi-chi vegan sushi bars in Pelosi's district? Why won't HHS release this data? what is so classified about health care? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not interested in hearing Fox News talking points. Propose to close discussion as WP:SOAP. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

ill put you down as a no also, 4 to 3 now. it is actually msnbc, not fox, where Lawrence O'Donnell has his show, so the talk is coming from both sides of the aisle. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to question the motivation behind this push. While it is true the administration has not been as transparent as it said it would, it's been far more transparent then other past administrations, including creating a couple government websites for the purpose of transparency. (Note: the GOP has been trying to cut funding to those web sites.) Now, a topic like this is based more on history then current events. Basically, it can wait till he is out of office for a better gauge on the amount of transparency his administration had. However on the other hand, taking into account that we're moving into presidential elections, comments like "socialist commentator," and the fact that originally the editor tried using mainly right wing commentary to back up their point, we need to question the motivations why we need to add this at this exact moment. Brothejr (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

to make a more complete article perhaps? plz see the above report by Center for Public Integrity, To be clear, the Obama administration is less transparent than the Bush administration. Lawrence O'Donnell called himself a socialist, my reason to include the term was a response to , "fox talking points" comment. Argle, then why did they endorse liberal candidates in 2010, like Therese Murray, Josh Cutler, and Eileen Donaghue? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the problem with your statement: Bush Jr's administration was far less transparent then Obama's. If you really want to argue that, then there are hundreds of news articles that disagree with you and I have no energy to start a back and forth on the subject. It was clearly during Obama's administrations that there was any push for transparency. Also, if you are trying to be neutral, then why did you feel the need to include the word "socialist". I would think that if someone was trying to be neutral, the political leanings of a commentator in this case would not matter and thus not be needed to be said. Also, clearly you had not really looked at the article otherwise you would have seen that there already is a section on public images and such. Can we end this charade please and move on? In the end, this will fizzle after a lot of posturing from Darkstar and maybe one or two others who share his POV. Brothejr (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

you act like socialist is a bad word, i only added it to counter accusations this was only coming from the right. i provided my sources saying less transparent, you have no source saying more. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Socialist" is an epithet hurled freely by some agitators on the right. O'Donnell has referred to himself as one. The political persuasion of the source shouldn't affect how we use it, because if the source is playing politics it is not reliable and we should not use it. This isn't a rugby scrimmage of pro versus anti-Obama forces, nor is it a place to rank presidents or give them a score. Simply, Obama made a minor to middling political issue and promise out of transparency which, should he follow through, would be a significant change in American governance and would likely generate enough sources to be worth including here. That hasn't happened, either the transparency some were hoping for or the flood of sources yea or nay, and unless that happens the issue just isn't weighty enough for this article. My concern over the goal and tenor of this conversation comes from this edit. It's a little confusing and perhaps I read the syntax wrong but the original posting seems to be rhetorically arguing "are you interested to learn why 38 of 204 waivers recently went to fru-fru and chi-chi vegan sushi bars in Pelosi's district? Why won't HHS release this data? what is so classified about health care?" which is not only veering in the unproductive direction of arguing the subject rather than improving the article (per WP:TALK), but is also repeating some ignorant name-calling that Fox News commentators have been promoting. That would not be a useful direction at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor issue? Obama made transparancy a cornerstone of his presidential bid. Transparancy, the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, and Gitmo. Hell, that was almost all he ever talked about. One of his first acts as president was an order in the name of transparancy. However, since his lack of transparancy is now obvious, the most of the left seems to want to forget about it as well. The point of noting that O'donnell is a far left socialist is important so as to note that this issue is not simply being mentioned from the right. Arzel (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

so now the word vegan is a bad name, or did you mean chi chi? why are so many waivers in one tiny part of the usa? am i the only one who thinks this odd? why is information about health classified? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar, FYI : The Globe is the liberal Boston paper. The Herald is the middle-to-conservative paper. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought these sorts of things were called Misplaced Pages:Coatrack? It's the sort of thing late-night comedians enjoy mentioning when they want to ridicule Misplaced Pages's claims to be an 'encyclopedia' as opposed to a string of personal opinions. Along with a bit of Truthiness, perhaps? Look. An article on the history of transparency in the U.S. federal government might be useful, and could incorporate the sources I provided. That's the sort of article an actual encyclopedia would have. But to make it part of the Barack Obama article, claiming it's 'relevant' based on a campaign statement? Really? You're serious? (In which case I demand a "Baseball, mom and apple pie" section to be required for each and every US politician article, with detailed comparison to every other politician's efforts in these areas.) Perhaps you're confusing Misplaced Pages with Conservapedia, which uses 'articles' (aka attack pieces) as excuses to push some partisan view, carefully avoiding ay source which doesn't fit the predefined 'picture'. That would not be us. At least not on purpose. Flatterworld (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

HA!! If only. A cursory view of WP would lead most to believe it should be Liberalpedia. One of Obama's first actions as president was a pledge of "an unprecedented level of openness in government." Apparently, since he has been either unable or unwilling to abide by this pledge it is...somehow unimportant. Arzel (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that, then you should not be editing at Misplaced Pages, especially on any political articles. You would probably be more at home at Conservapedia, where each article is bent to a obvious bias for the websites own political ideology. In any case, if one reads the vast majority of articles on Misplaced Pages, they will come away better informed. As for the transparency issue, your opinion is noted but not fact based. Obama has made 'unprecedented' measures towards more Government transparency, even if overall the effort seems to be lacking. It's probably something that will be covered by reliable sources over time, and when it is it can be properly added to the appropriate article. Dave Dial (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer that WP not be the biased cesspool that it has become on a number of articles. My opinion is based on fact, the fact that Obama has made unprecedented measures toward transparency and by all measures, except his own, failed miserably. Arzel (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, propose to close. The discussion has been had. To the extent there is a proposal here it has no reasonable chance of gaining consensus, and ongoing talk here seems mostly about soapboxing about the topic and Misplaced Pages's supposed flaws for not presenting the truth. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

i have decided to leave it open for now. a few days has brought several comments from different editors, a few days more won't hurt. discussion has come from both sides and there may be a way we can work through our differences to add something to this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that for a biography of Obama's life, the level of transparency for his administration compared to campaign promises he made is not a significant enough issue to warrant coverage here. Besides, it is well covered at Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Transparency. I concur with Wikidemon's proposal that this topic should be closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The protectorate has spoken. Obama's lack of transparency shall ironically be whitewashed and hidden behind a veil of avoidance. Arzel (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a hatnote

{{redirect|O'Bama|the song|There's No One as Irish as Barack O'Bama}}

65.95.13.213 (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: I sincerely doubt that anyone who types "O'Bama" into the search bar meant to find the fairly obscure song with a much longer name. Hatnotes are useful when they help people who likely end up on a page by mistake, but that seems highly unlikely here. Instead, that simply seems to promote the song. If that goes anywhere, it would go at the Obama dab page, but I'm not even sure it belongs there. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2011 (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
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• 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
• FA-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• FA-Class District of Columbia articles
• High-importance District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject District of Columbia articles
• FA-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class United States Presidents articles
• Mid-importance United States Presidents 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
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• FA-Class Kansas articles
• Mid-importance Kansas articles
• WikiProject Kansas articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Top-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class Indonesia articles
• Low-importance Indonesia articles
• WikiProject Indonesia articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• FA-Class Africa articles
• Mid-importance Africa articles
• FA-Class Kenya articles
• Low-importance Kenya articles
• WikiProject Kenya articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment