Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 64

This is an archive of past discussions about Barack Obama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

→

Prior cleanup of redundant categories

Discussion thread now in Talk:Barack_Obama#Obama_and_religion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Previously, there had been a discussion here regarding redundant categories in the article, and the problem it was causing. As a consequence, there was consensus to do some cleanup. For example, there was more than one category of Christian, redundant since the United Church of Christ category is included. Recently, an editor, User:Protostan (talk) (contribs), added the category Protestant with the edit summary "Article is better now". Per WP:BRD, I reverted, with an edit summary explaining that the category is redundant to that of UCC. His response was to insert the category again, with the edit summary "Thanks however [AP] wire story on Obama's resignation from Trinity United Church of Christ in the course of the Jeremiah Wright controversy stated that he had, in doing so, disaffiliated". The editor did not remove the UCC category, however. I've invited the editor to discuss his change, and gain consensus, here, before making the change again. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This same editor, User:Protostan (talk), has again restored his edit, without discussion. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Requests for enforcement --4wajzkd02 (talk)\|}

2004 East African newspaper article describes Obama as Kenyan-born

Birther silliness

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

So? --Jayron32 05:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron. What's your point? He wasn't born there, so it doesn't matter what an "East African newspaper describes." This birther stuff has been discussed ad nauseum. U A 05:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenyan (former) under American

Closing, per WP:Consensus that this lacks WP:NOTE

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note that FAQ Q5 doesn't apply here - this concern is putting Kenyan as a former nationality in the infobox. While Obama was born in America (no doubt about that), he still held de jure Kenyan citizenship until his 20's through his father, which I think should be placed in the infobox. Reason being, we put many former things in infoboxes - such as George W. Bush's former Christian denomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.219.20.148 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be superfluous. But is it even true? Do you have a source? Did Kenya Colony even have independent citizenship or would that be some kind of British citizenship? And did birth to a Kenyan father automatically confer Kenyan (or British?) citizenship even in mixed marriages with the birth taking place abroad? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Did he ever identify as Kenyan, obtain a passport, in any way acknowledge its authority over him? As I understand it, his right to Kenyan citizenship expired at age 21 because he had done none of these things. I think it is more a question of right to citizenship than citizenship itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless or until someone produces a specific citation claiming this Kenyan citizenship--one that meets WP:RS, not some birther blog--this whole discussion is moot. Some anon making an WP:SYNTH claim about WP:OR interpreting 1960s British or Kenyan law is completely irrelevant for our purposes. Find the New York Times stating the alleged fact... then we have something worth discussing (which doesn't mean it's actually worth including, just that the question is serious). LotLE×talk 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

See here--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - I had forgotten about that article. If I'm reading it correctly, he:

Became a US Citizen by birth, by being "born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu" (jus soli)
Obtained dual citizenship to the United Kingdom "by descent" (jus sanguinis) since "his father [was] a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth"
Lost his UK (Dual) Citizenship "On Dec. 12, 1963" when "Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom"
Obtained dual citizenship to Kenyan "on 12th December, 1963" (jus sanguinis), "having been born outside Kenya", due to his father becoming "a citizen of Kenya by virtue of " "having been born in Kenyan"
Lost his Kenyan (Dual) Citizenship on "Aug. 4,1984", as "the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults", and he " neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya"
Never lost his U.S. Citizenship

All by doing nothing. I wonder how many other ex-British and ex-Kenyan citizens there are in the world? By the above rules, there are as many ex-British citizens as there are children born of a British father, regardless of where the children were born, and similarly as many ex-Kenyan citizens. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Yes indeed, and there are many UK citizens in the UK who would have lost UK citizenship had they stayed in their homeland, until they tightened things up, somewhat after Obama's birth. Those things you say are correct. So he is a former UK and former Kenyan citizen, but as he never did anything about them, it isn't very notable or worthy of inclusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama and religion

Closing - resolved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is a fact that Obama is no longer part of the UC of C and that the Church he usually attends these days is run by a Baptist. However Obama is not a formal member so it would be wrong to say he is a Baptist but not wrong to say he is a protestant. --Protostan (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned on your talk page, see WP:DUPCAT. By virtue of being (properly) in the UCC category, he is also automatically part of the Protestant category. There is no need to single-purposedly add the Protestant Category to this article. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I would agree with you but Obama is no longer a member of that Church. However I think he qualifies to retain that category since he was a member of that denomination for a long time. --Protostan (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your proposed change.

"he qualifies to retain [the UCC] category". As noted by another editor on your talk page, in the User_talk:Protostan#Obama_and_UCC_and_Protestant_categories section, "categories reflect someone's membership in various organizations throughout their life. That's why Obama is still in categories for, for example, Illinois Senators and U-Chicago Law faculty". I understand this, as well. So there is consensus to keep the UCC category, it seems.
"I would agree with you" - I'm hopeful that you mean you agree with me that "There is no need to need to ... add the Protestant Category". Is that the case? If so, we can close this discussion thread, and you are satisfied that, indeed, given the way categorization works, Obama is in the category of Protestants by virtue of being in the category of one time or current UCC members. It is like that bit of logic we learned in grammar school: "All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles". Similarly, "All members of the United Church of Christ category are members of the Protestant category, but not all Protestants are members of the United Church of Christ category". Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Allegedly born in Hawaii.

Closing this per FAQ Q5/A5 & WP:NOTAFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I feel this article should reflect a broader opinion I think that he was born in the USA but there are alot of people who think he was born in Kenya sorry if I'm being a pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.187.14 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to question number 5 in the FAQ section at the top of this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversial award

I can't edit it. This is a BLP. That uncited stuff about it being "controversial" in Norway needs to be removed immediately.

No, it needs to be mentioned that the award is controversial because it is highly controversial. This has nothing to do with BLP at all. The controversy is thouroughly cited in the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize article, with the leaders of the two main opposition parties as well as other parties criticizing the award, which is highly unusual. The award has also been the subject of criticism abroad[1]. Only mentioning the praise and not the criticism would be a violation of WP:NPOV, our core policy which every article must adhere to. GVU (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

One Norwegian politician and the OpEd of a newspaper do not a controversy make. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not one politician. Here's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html GVU (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Its the head of the opposition party. Is the head of one political party criticizing their opponents newsworthy? Didn't think so. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

GVU: You've posted an editorial, a non-English source, and a Wall Street Journal article (the WSJ is owned by News Corp., whose CEO is Rupert Murdoch); see WP:COI. Please source with something more substantial than references which violate various Wikipedia policies. DKqwerty (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a "controversial" award; Obama has done a lot to bring the world together. This is a BLP; adding inappropriate and controversial statements to the bio is not acceptable. AdjustShift (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" – please, get yourself a blog. This is an encyclopedia and your edits are totally unsuitable for this article. It is a controversial award because it has been widely criticized. GVU (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" – this is what the Nobel Committee meant. The exact citation was "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples". See [2]. AdjustShift (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So? Thorbjørn Jagland is not the only one entitled to have an opinion. GVU (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment ("please, get yourself a blog"). "Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" is not my point of view; this is what the Nobel Committee meant. AdjustShift (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's at least worthy of note that the award was met with "surprise" by Nobel observers, as he was nominated only two weeks into his presidency. That's the way it's being described on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Supporter of Obama or not, there is no question that it is a controversial award: the top five articles on CNN right now are all discussing whether or not he deserves it in the first place. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. GVU (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Obama peace prize win polarizes Web ? Yes, the bloggers, the WNDS, the Free Republics are certainly all in a tizzy, but calling that "widespread and well sourced criticism" is a bit dishonest. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are simply ridiculous, the award has been criticized by the leaders of the two largest opposition parties in Norway, it has been criticized by Lech Wales, by The Times, etc. etc. 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GVU (talk • contribs)

Everything is a "controversy" these days. Just because people are talking about something doesn't automatically make it "controversial". And GVU: once again, you refuse to understand that none of the sources you've provided meet Wikipedia standards as reliable sources. Disagreement (especially from one's opposition and detractors) is not itself indication of controversy. As you pointed out, this is an encyclopedia; to that end, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's sourcing and biographical policies. DKqwerty (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems as if everything this man does is controversial recently. Just because someone disagrees with it does mean it is controversial and even when articles (not editorials/opinion blogs) do mention it they mention it in that light. Brothejr (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem some seem to be having here; confusing criticism with controversy. Arafat winning (even though I support him and the award) was controversial. Gandhi never winning was controversial. This, while unexpected, does not seem to rise to that level. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fair at this point to say that it was a surprise. I do think the middle paragraph of the section, describing other nominees and the nomination process, is a little too much detail and a weight problem - if people are that curious how it came to be they can read the article on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think to be even more fair, this "event" hasn't even really played itself out yet. I mean, most of this thread existed before Obama had even made his acceptance speech! It's unfortunate that the pace and populous of the Internet force us to add these things moments (read: seconds) after they happen with large rushes to judgment, needless edits, libelous edits, redundancies, trivia, etc., etc. rather than being able to discuss them first, then add them after the "event" has played out. Or at the very least some semblance of what's going on can be established and consensus reached rather than every random person on the Internet tries to have his version his way. I think this article should be fully protected and only admins editing after reasonable consensus is reached. But I'm sure that will never happen. DKqwerty (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In the mean time. I have left a note asking editors to try to format their citations in some way - so as to avoid bare URLs. I can foresee such minor things being taken up on by the FAR sharks which I am sure have been circulating ever since Obama was elected. I think it is credit to the authors and users who maintain it that this article hasn't been challenged thus far. SGGH ^ping! 16:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more than enough editors here to fix minor stuff like formatting. Hobartimus (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In case anybody has forgotten, Obama is the president of the United States. Therefore, just about every single word he says and every single thing he does will be controversial, if by "controversial" one means that some people will be happy while others will not. To call his Nobel win "controversial" at this point would seem as silly as declaring a year ago that his presidential victory is "controversial" because there were lots of folks who voted for McCain. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. All criticism not allowed in wikipedia. Google "obama nobel prize ridiculous" gives 367K results, but media like WSJ and MSNBC are cosidered "unreliable", so just leave it at 90% praise and a short mention of dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jck5000 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, criticism (with citations) is allowed to be included on Wikipedia - it just needs to be in context. It is quite unreasonable to make an article full of criticism when in perspective, such "controversies" are only a minor part of a person's life. They span over a few weeks or months and are usually forgotten over time when their presidency, for instance, spans over several years and is usually remembered many years after. I don't see this article with 90% praise - I only see the facts being written down: where Obama was born, what happened in his life, when he got elected as President etc. WHSL ^(Talk) 03:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

total number of troops in iraq

Research question apparently unrelated to this article; no suggestion for edit to article

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

does anyone know the number? maximum under bush ? maximum under obama? thanks. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

hey! what is apparent to you is not to me. after i get a "research" answer, i will give a suggestion for inclusion. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not give us the suggestion now? If not, I'd go to the article for the Iraq War, and ask there. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

well, it relates to his pre-election promises versus his presidential decisions. he was talking about pulling troops home, yet i've read somewhere there are more troops now than any time during bush. i just cannot find the specific article again, and was wandering if others read similar stuff. so it may not only be interesting for the iraq war article, but also for this article. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a fit for here, no, perhaps Political positions of Barack Obama would be better. But if you're going to try to find one article about pre-campaign statements and another article about the current troop level in Iraq, and tie them together in a "he said this but did that" thing, that would run afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

not me, the article i read made this comparison. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to, y'know, link to it? Or is this game going to stretch on for awhile more? Tarc (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

would you care to read what i wrote? i read this somewhere, but i cannot frind the article. i don't bookmark everything i read. so my question here is if anyone else has come across similar information. i don't care if you see this as a game - it is your perception. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The perception is that it seems likely that your favorite blogger or worldnetdaily-style site wrote yet another scathing critique, or maybe a right-leaning UK tabloid like dailymail or the Guardian. Sounds like fringe criticism that would not be article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

funny. you think i'm a right wing. on another page i was accused of being left wing. it's all about perception. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

what is this silly censorship?

i finally found the article. no 'blog' nor 'worldnetdaily' nor 'right leaning tabloid' but the Washington Post. [3]

" The buildup has raised the number of U.S. troops deployed to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan above the peak during the Iraq "surge" that President George W. Bush ordered, officials said "

I think this could fit well into Iraq war section. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your point being what? Obviously there are going to be more in Afghanistan, that has always been how it was going to be. There is no suggestion for the article here, and if there was, it's a small bit that can better fit in elsewhere. Grsz¹¹ 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ooo, i see. my bad. i thought he was talking during elections something about 'bringing troops home', but it was actually 'bringing troops to Afghanistan'. you are right. this is not worth inclusion. it is to be expected from politicians. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously were not listening to what he said then. Grsz¹¹ 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Way too biased

Regardless of what the FAQ might claim, there is absolutely no way this article is without bias; any reasonable reader could come to such a conclusion. The entire article is peppered with partial language. "Rising star?" Really? We need to all stop being so defensive over this, regardless of where we fall politically, and strive to make it an article that really represents Wikipedia, not the selfish ambitions of certain members of Wikipedia. 67.60.50.5 (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind very much pointing out your specific concerns? I note your problems with "rising star", but if your concerns only surround issues addressed in the FAQ (Birther nonsense and that type thing) then there's nothing that can be done to help you here. U A 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, do you have actually suggestions on specific stuff or are you just here to make a statement on the article? Brothejr (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

- Indeed, that there may be one or two phrases that do not belong is one thing. If the words "rising star" bother you, then remove them. Per WP:PEACOCK, you probably have grounds to do so. However, I disagree that the entire article is itself non-neutral. --Jayron32 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask on the rising start words, what does the reference attached to the section/sentence say? If those words are not used in the ref, then we cannot use them. However, if the ref uses them then we should say it exactly as the ref says it. Brothejr (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, probably not. I can find a source which uses all SORTS of words to describe Obama. That doesn't mean that those words necessarily belong in an encyclopedia article. As an encyclopedia we should report, not provide commentary; and merely because another source makes the same commentary does not mean that such terms are instantly appropriate. --Jayron32 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So in the end, what you are saying is that if you don't like the words then they are POV, Peacock and should be removed despite them being true, accurate, neutral, and backed up by sources? I've seen the use of the term rising star in various politician's articles here on both sides of the political spectrum with no issues with the use of that term. However, due to heated hyper-politics of today we cannot use that term on this page because one side or another does not like that. If that was the case, then a lot should be removed from this article because the POV warriors don't like them and in their place POV slanted words should be used. However because someone does not like the term, does not mean it is not neutral and cannot be used. (I.E. in the IP's opinion this article should be a lot less glowing and a lot more critical of the president especially from the right.)Brothejr (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you feel that "rising star" is peacock words, this I highly suggest you go through every article that uses that term and remove/replace them. Brothejr (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I reworded it. It now means the same basic thing, but the issue is addressed. If it's brought up as an issue at other pages, it can be addressed there. U A 17:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is: how is it an issue just on this page and no other article? How is it ok to use the term: rising star, on other pages with no one complaining and yet, someone complains here because of bias problems, it's an issue here? So if I go to another article and say I have an issue with a term other editors will come in and bend over backwards accommodating me? Why does hyper-politicians have more weight on this page when others with hyper-politics are able to use the term with no issues? That is my issue. Brothejr (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the use of the term "rising star" in another article, remove it from there. That some other random Wikipedia article is badly written does not excuse this one of its problems. --Jayron32 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that I didn't like the term or the use of the term in other article. Nor do I agree that using the term in this article make it a badly written article either. My issue is this: this all boils down to POV bias. Those that don't like the man don't like the term. Those that either like the man or are neutral don't have a problem with the term due to the fact that it is rather descriptive and to the point. Notice how many words you had to add to replace that term and other terms that you considered peacock. Also, those who still don't like the man will still have problems with what you wrote? If they make that claim that the article is too biased towards praise and they point out the sections/lines you wrote as badly written/peacock will you go back and change it again towards what they want? Brothejr (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You sound too hard like you are trying to "win" as if "they" are somehow a competitor that must be "defeated." Look, if you read my response above, I vehemently disagreed that the article was too POV, which was the IP's original problem. But the use of informal English, for an FA-rated article, is inappropriate regardless of the political position of the person who notices it. The OP may or may not have a political agenda to push, but it doesn't make the term "rising star" appropriately formal language for an encyclopedia article. For the record, when I removed rising star from the lede, and reorganized the text, it resulted in a net decrease of 48 characters, so I didn't add any words. I made the article 48 characters shorter. Plus, don't tell me what I will or will not do in anything. You have no right sir, no right, to put words in my mouth or tell me what I will or will not do. The words were not properly formal English, and were, as such, rewritten to a more appropriate tone. If anyone else finds similar poor English, expected changed as well. --Jayron32 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My first edit replaced 4 words with 6, my second simply removed 3 words. So actually, it was a net trim of verbiage, if looked at that way. U A 17:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a fair call, the article used the term "star" far too many times and it probably shouldn't be used at all. Though true in a sense, the word is too colorful and carries some vague connotations of adoration, celebrity, and approval that aren't really what we're trying to say. It's not exactly peacock, but when we use language that is too strong and informal we give the encyclopedia its own narrative voice, and that gets in the way of communicating with the reader. Journalists can do that because they are part of the story, they create their persona through their written or spoken voice and people identify with them. The encycloepdia is supposed to be completely neutral, though, no man behind the curtain here. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Either way I take issue that two editors are jumping through hoops to adjust the "peacock terms and bias" because one IP editor felt this article should: "strive to make it an article that really represents Wikipedia, not the selfish ambitions of certain members of Wikipedia." I also ask why now with this IP editor and not the countless other POV warriors who taken issue with various bits of this article are these two editors jumping through those hoops? Brothejr (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, even IP editors right twice a day, right? I don't think anyone is jumping through a hoop, I think the IP editor for his/her own reasons called our attention to the over-use of a less than perfect turn of words that some people have decided to improve. Why is "star" okay for those articles? Because they're not FA-class. Also, a person who is a featured performer, particularly in an acting or singing production, is a "star" in a literal sense so those uses are not metaphorical. The encyclopedia would probably be better if we replaced many less literal uses of "star" "up-and-coming", "young Turks", "whippersnapper", and "idol" but it's not exactly my first priority for the encyclopedia. I just discovered another bankrupt national chain of fitness centers that doesn't have its own article yet, so plenty of bigger holes to fill... - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Restored longstanding sentence with historically accurate description from multiple cited authoritative contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That another source uses informal English does not mean Wikipedia needs to repeat the use of informal English. There is nothing wrong with reporting the importance of the event but to use language of an appropriate mode and tone for an encyclopedia. The words "rising star" do not represent a level of formality and quality writing one would normally expect of a featured article. It has nothing to do with how truly awesome and cool and wonderful Obama is, it has to do with using words and phrases that are appropiate to the style of writing one expects out of the best of Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly though this is not an issue about formal or informal English as much as one's take on the words: Rising Star. Brothejr (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to express the concept of "rising star" without using the words "rising star". It's just not the proper tone. We could call him a "cool dude" or "the bitchinest cat on the block" or something like that, it still wouldn't be of a tone that is appropriate for an encylopedia. The issue is using the right words to fully capture the concept of "becomeing more and more important as a figure" without resorting to colloquialisms or slang. Slang just isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Look, the idea that winning the Illinois Senate primary brought about a rapid rise in importance in his position in the Democratic Party, and indeed, in Politics in the U.S., is not what is being debated here. I am certainly not arguing that we don't report that fact. What is being argued here is the improper use of slang to describe the event. We can describe the event without using slang terms. --Jayron32 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama declares H1N1 emergency

Close per WP:NOTNEWS

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/24/h1n1.obama/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.20 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing an addition to the article? If so, not only is Wikipedia not the news, but such an addition would go better in a different political article than this one. If not, Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of a topic. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a minor issue in USA, currently there are 1240 confirmed deaths and probably million of cases in US. This is the first pandemic flu in 21st century. So it is very important how and what the president acts in this issue. But currently there is 0 word about flu in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.20 (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What the president does about the issue may or may not be worth including in this biographical article about him - it all depends on what he does and how significant the sources say that is. It also depends how severe this epidemic becomes. 1,000+ deaths and millions of cases is far less than the typical seasonal flue, although it is still too early to say how it will unfold. I wouldn't think that merely declaring a state of emergency by itself is doing very much. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"worth including in this biographical article". My point is, assuming it is of WP:NOTE, wouldn't an addition be better in Presidency of Barack Obama than in this article? BTW, declaring a public health emergency could well be a notable action (a historical review of prior such declarations would help). According to the New York Times:

The declaration allows hospitals to apply to the Department of Health and Human Services for waivers from laws that ... are intended to to protect patients' privacy and to ensure they are not discriminated against based on their source of payment for care... As a practical matter ... the waiver could allow a hospital to remove [swine flu patients], and any ER visitors suspected of having the illness, to a location ... to segregate such cases for treatment

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Deadliest month for the U.S. military

Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/27/afghan.deaths/index.html

" With the deaths of two troops on Sunday, a total of 24 Americans -- most of them military -- have been killed in a 48-hour period. That makes October 2009, with 58 fatalities, the deadliest month for the U.S. military since the Afghanistan war began in October 2001."

Why we can't read about it on the main article? It seems that Afghanistan is the Nobel peace prize winner Obama's Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.146.52 (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Short answer-No. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also-"It seems that Afghanistan is the Nobel peace prize winner Obama's Iraq"-why do you have to insert such a snide comment? I'm just going to assume you're trolling. Just go away and fantasise about Sarah Palin why don’t you.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

IPA

A small point - might /ɵ'bɑ:mə/ be preferable to /oʊ'bɑ:mə/? Lfh (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Uh" bama preferable to "Oh" bama? ? It would not preferable because it is not how the name is pronounced. Abrazame (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What sound do you mean by "uh"? Wikipedia uses /ɵ/ to represent the first syllable of omission or Ohio. Lfh (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. Even if it did, we're not talking about dialectal pronunciations of other common words, we're talking about the proper pronunciation of a name, Barack Obama. The "O" sound in Obama is the long "o", the pure monophthong represented by oʊ, as in go or oh, as I stated earlier: "Oh" bama. The shortened, secondary stressed (sometimes referred to as unstressed) schwa of ə, when attributed to the letter o, is generally pronounced "uh", as in eloquent or harmony. I know several people from Ohio, who pronounce it "Oh"-hio, and even a California-esque "Oeuw"-hio.

Merriam-Webster gives the pronunciation for those two words as \ō-ˈhī-(ˌ)ō, ə-, -ə\ and \ō-ˈmi-shən, ə-\ respectively, offering the schwa as a secondary (read: dialectal) pronunciation, so if our article were to give that primacy, I'd hope you'd go suggest changing that unless it is supported by a better ref than Merriam-Webster.

In fact, however, contrary to your claim, Wikipedia's article Ohio offers /oʊˈhaɪ.oʊ/ as the sole pronunciation, and has not been edited to that effect in recent days. Wikipedia has no pronunciation for any article involving the word "omission", so far as I can tell. So what's the deal, Lfh?

Even in the event that they did, it's not reason to come here and degrade the strong vowel sound as enunciated by those who are not prevented by saturation in their dialects or accents from pronouncing the name correctly. (See separate thread on this page referencing what the British tendency to clip pronunciation does to their handling of his first name, as "Barrack".)

I would not argue against changing our article to read /ō'bɑ:mə/ (with an ō), but your suggestion is, as I already stated, not preferable. Abrazame (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Barrak Obama"

Close - Resolved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is there any reason for why this re-directs here, or is it just a spelling thing… (I also noticed there are a fair few similar re-directs)--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling is exactly the reason. Frank | talk 12:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted it to make sure it wasn’t anything malicious like that “Ogabe” thing.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's maybe not possible to be 100% sure, but it was created in October 2006, and I hear his name pronounced "Barrak" (although I'd use "Barrack" as in "Barracks"), with the accent on the first syllable, quite often on the BBC News Hour radio program. Frank | talk 12:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to modify FAQ 2, African American in light of persistent misunderstanding of what the term includes and excludes

Closed - Modified per WP:Consensus

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Clearly some editing this passage in the article have not and would not read the FAQ section, but for those who do I suggest pointing out that African American does not preclude having white parentage. African American is not wikilinked in either the question or the answer of that section. I propose Wikilinking African American there, and explicitly addressing the fact that, as the African American article notes, African American and biracial are not mutually exclusive terms. The lead of African American is: "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa."

FAQ 2 currently reads:

A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Thus we use this term in the introduction. Keep in mind, 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 Wikipedia 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.

I propose a change to:

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 Wikipedia 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.

The new text is either highlighted in blue or boldfaced in black. The only text I've removed from the current version is set in red in the "currently reads" section. Abrazame (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the intent, but it was pointed out in an earlier discussion thread on this talk page that a lot of time and effort went into getting consensus for the FAQ as is. Thus, my concern is that a lot of effort would be expended in updating the FAQ that would be better spent on improving the article. Pointing new editors to the FAQ is not that time-consuming (and we always have {hat} and {hab}). I'd be OK with wikilinking African American (if we could get consensus) - but only once (twice is redundant). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I commented on his race earlier, before having read this section, but I have to say, Abrazame gets across exactly what I was trying to get across, but does so more eloquently and succinctly than I. I think that the suggested addition could be quite informative and useful, considering the widespread confusion of race, ethnicity, skin tone, etc. with one another. If there's a chance to make readers more intellectually comfortable with what they're reading, why not take it? I agree that constructive article work should take precedence over editorial drama, but I'd suggest that conceptually drawing readers to the article is one of the most important and constructive types of article work that can be done. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the clarified wording for the FAQ. It adds a few words, but has a moderate chance of fending off some of the same repeated objections we see so often about "but he's white also". I think the change is consistent with the spirit of the existing entry, but uses a nice wording to make the point a little bit more strongly. LotLE×talk 06:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If consensus can be reached, I'm all for it. My only concern with his text, per se, is that African American is wikilinked twice. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlink the 2nd African-American, maybe link to an appropriate article in the "See our article on race..." if we are directing people somewhere for more information, and it looks ok. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread per WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not sure why all my statements here were erased, and not just this whole section, since it was already was just an extension of my discussion. But, since this seems to be the now current one, I will post some later replies here.

For all of the above reason? For all of the above reasons he is both african american, and biracial, and if ethnicity is not important then take it out of of the intro all together, and every other persons article. Why are you ignoring the previously used to justify this distinction African American article that backs up my point 100%. He is both, and if you are to mention one you are to mention both. Self identity is the key, because as you said he has no direct connection to african american history, only Kenyan and white american history. EIther way, you are obfuscating this for some reason I cannot understand and trying to stufle debate by saying what else needs to be said when you have ignored a myriad of valid points, and the very original argument that they are not mutually exclusive. Do you realize that you are denying an entire category people? Do you know how offensive that is Tarc?

I guess I just don't understand why, if the cited article of African Americans is used to justify his african american identity, it is then ignored that it actually said they are not mutually exclusive, and that he is "obviously biracial". I don't understand why the concept of it not being mutually exclusive is used to be exclusive, and why the "obviousness" of his biracial background is not included. Please explain those two things to me, and why you are not relying on self identification and not pretending a whole group and segment of the USA does not exist through your logic. JohnHistory (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Why not propose it for the article body, at the bottom of the "2008 presidential campaign" section? There would be much less of a weight concern there. I'd feel comfortable with the same (cited) addition there, although I expect others would differ. As far as I can tell, news articles refer to him as the "first black" about 50-100 times more as the "first biracial", so that's what people are paying most attention to. Here's an interesting program on that.[4] The fact is clearly noteworthy though, the question is whether it should be noted in this article or somewhere else instead... and if so, where? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, please see the discussion above as that is where it has been playing out. It is all explained there. The point is being "black" - African American and being Multiracial are not "mutually exclusive" as the wiki African American page makes clear, thus "weight of sources" is not relevant, and we are also getting into the subjective arena of self identification which cannot trump ethnic background. The fact is he is both black and multiracial, but please see the above One drop rule discussion I painstakingly have laid it out there. Thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

As i make clear in the earlier ongoing discussion, I'm not opposed to him being called "african american".

The sources that call him, or describe him as of mixed race are not contending with the ones which describe him as black, they are augmenting them because the two terms are not mutually exclusive, they are not contending ethnicities, or else, by definition, Obama could not be african american. JohnHistory (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

either people somehow ignore, or don't get that the weight of sources is irrelevant because you can be both multiracial and african american. Again, there are plenty of sources to augment his being black with, many in this article alone. This article already says he is "multiracial", so it has already been included. Thus, it is just a question of if it is relevant, or important enough. Since he would be the first multiracial person to become president it has to be noteworthy, and because he has discussed it and written books about it is important to him. Here is the major thing the people against this are missing, Obama does not deny his multiracial background when self identifies as african american or black. He is not way denying he is multicultural he has said a 1000 times how diverse his family is, and he says it with pride when he describes the different colors and ethnicities of his family, thus we need to stop being so exclusive about this. Using inclusiveness to be exclusive is not logical. JohnHistory (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Again, you seek to create a SOAPBOX and FORUM for your personal opinions on the nature of racial coverages on Wikipedia, in the form of a baiting series of writings which will provoke a BATTLEGROUND. Your ideas also contravene the basic form of scholarly writing required here. YOu have had all this explained to you, but dismiss everything as 'you're all wrong for not seeing that my personal feelings supersede good writing, good scholarship, respect for sources, or any other thing you all tell me is sensible, because dammit, I'm right.' It is time for you to stop it. Two further points. Please, write one long screed, instead of replying to yourself over and over and over, it gives me, at least, as sense that you really just like the look of your own words. Two, if you use '~~~~' you do not need to put your name after it, that looks like you want everyone to see that you're so great you need to sign twice. Both these discomfiting behaviors do not make your writing more enjoining to read. ThuranX (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thuranx, you have completely failed to reason with anything I said. This seems like a personal vendetta. Isn't there a Halo or video game article that desperately needs your input right now? All you have done is avoid my valid points. Do you think being multiracial is not important, or noteworthy? It's already in the article, and major theme of both the campaign, media, and his own books. Unless you want to address these points head on, please refrain from false accusations against me. You have already been told by other editors that this is not a soapbox, yet you persist to essentially create your own soapbox. Please, if it is already in the article, down to the exact phrase "multiracial" then how is it just "my opinion"? Either contribute, or don't. RIght now your only point seems to be that despite it already being in the article, multiracial people are not important or relevant enough to note, especially in terms of one of them becoming the first president of such a background. IF you and Tarc want to push that line, which I cannot reason how it is not racist and bigoted towards and entire legally validated group of people, then that is reflective on you, not me. So, please explain why they are not important or relevant, as that is the discussion now. JohnHistory (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Again, the terms, as per the African American article, are not mutually exclusive, and you have ignored this. Why do they not matter as a people? How is that not being racist? Where has Obama refuted that he is not the product of a multiracial background? The evidence for him embracing this are endless. So, why are you pushing it's exclusion from the intro (it's already in the body). The only reason can be that you consider such a legally recognized group as not important, or somehow have misunderstood that being multiracial and african american are in now way contradictory terms. JohnHistory (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I have a question, why were my comments in this section deleted? Why would that be? Again, I will state that as per the African American article cited to say Obama can be included as an African American the argument presented is that the term african american is not mutually exclusive, so then why are we using it to exclude the obvious and directly stated in the article fact that he is also multiracial? That makes 0 sense, and it just amounts to denying the existence of a legally recognized group of people. Obama has bragged about how diverse his family is, his self identification as African American in no way is a denial of being multiracial, yet many here seem hell bent on denying this and using an inclusive term to be exclusive. JohnHistory (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

And, the second I posted this it became shut down like somebody has something that just shuts it down when I post. Literally, this page is being censored, and not only my posts deleted without explanation, but then anything I bring up in completely shut down. This is beyond strange. And, again, refute my points above or include it. Don't obfuscate or personally attack. JohnHistory (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Johnhistory

Even the explanation in the history for this discussion says "consistent misunderstanding of what the term (african american) includes and excludes." well it clearly includes "multiracial" yet you all have a clear strong desire to exclude it. JohnHistory (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Just to be clear, I was not signed in when I first posted above, when I went to sign it, the discussion had suddenly been closed, that's why the times are the same for my first and second posts. Check the page history. This is beyond the pale. JohnHistory (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Over the course of many paragraphs on this page, you made your points many times that we should add multiethnic or multiracial to the lead of this article (it is already included in the body of the article.) Many answers were given to you why this will not happen. I won't bother to repeat all of the responses here as you can read them for yourself, above.

Continuing to argue the point when consensus is against you on this subject is disruptive to a busy talkpage. None of your comments have been deleted, they have been condensed (along with the responses to your comments) inside of the hatnotes, above. Click show next to the condensed sections to open them up. We routinely close sections when they appear to be going nowhere or when they begin to violate talkpage guidelines. I don't think any of your comments have been removed, but the claims of censorship are silly when the page history records all. There is no "desire to exclude" anything, only a desire to follow our content policies. Anyway, you are free to seek dispute resolution, but please re-read all of the discussion we've had with you above and note that a large consensus is clearly against adding multiethnic to the lead -- it's already in the article body. --guyzero | talk 10:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Modified per consensus after ten days with no further constructive comment. Abrazame (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

preventive detention plan

Close per WP:NOTNEWS

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[5]

please place this somewhere. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That link is to a news report about something that may happen and as such is a WP:CRYSTAL item; even if it does happen, this is an article about the man, not a blow-by-blow account of every political report about his presidency. Frank | talk 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

actually, it is a published report on something that has happened, namely, a conversation with the president about preventive detention plan. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

in addition, it received considerable news attention: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] 212.200.205.163 (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is still not a blow-by-blow account of Obama's presidency. If the subject is notable, perhaps a preventive detention article should be started. If not, perhaps an addition to Guantanamo Bay detention camp would be appropriate. Possibly an entry into Presidency of Barack Obama. But it's not appropriate in a biographical article about the man. Later on, if events prove it to be a major topic of his life, perhaps...but not now. Frank | talk 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

in this biographical article i see there is a whole section on 'political positions'. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean that we should include something like this right here, right now. There are always dozens of news reports on everything Obama does; just having news reports doesn't mean that the event has any special significance and must be included in this man's biography. Yes, perhaps it belongs somewhere else. It's about being reasonable - if we included everything about Barack Obama that had a few dozen news reports on it on this article, the article would look pretty silly. WHSL ^(Talk) 14:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish-American

Close per WP:UNDUE

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Shouldn't it also be mentioned that Mr. Obama is the 10th consecutive Irish-American to be President of the United States, while also mentioning his African-American heritage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.193.40 (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I will take your word for it that his ancestry includes Ireland. However, unless there is a very large percentage, we don't consider it worth mentioning.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There's No One as Irish as Barack O'Bama. (But no, it doesn't belong in the main article). LotLE×talk 22:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Ann_Dunham#Ancestry, Obama's mother's side is mostly English. The Irish is mixed in with a small amount of other things, such as Scottish, Welsh, French, and many other things. Were we to be that strict, we could probably find a lot more than 10 Irish American presidents. We'd also have to list Obama as a French American president. Hell, I have a tiny bit of Irish ancestry myself, but I would not be considered an Irish American. Obama's primary ancestry is Kenyan and English. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the Irish American article lists 29. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's really digging to make that list, and has a bunch lacking citation. Even among those with citation are somewhat dubious, such as Andrew Jackson. He isn't ethnically Irish, he's Scots-Irish, he's ethnically Scottish, with ancestors that moved to Ireland and then America. His own article lists him as Scots-Irish American, not just Irish American. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Education

Can an 'Education' subject be added to this page? Any figure such as Barak Obama, or any American President for that matter, deserves a section that details his education so that the readers of Wikipedia can easily see the qualifications of this man.

I hope to add 'Education' subjects to many of Wikipedia's subjects that are relevant in today's society. Unfortunately I have been unable to do so with both Ray Common and Glen Beck, so I am hoping I have better luck with Barak Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazaamemt (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a gag? The second paragraph of the lead of this bio reads "Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review." Moreover, the section "Early life and career" gives considerable details about Obama's education, from elementary school on, with quite a few specifics about his law school career included beyond mere attendance. If there is some specific fact you feel we have omitted, by all means suggest it on this talk page; however, it's hard to see how to make sense of a claim that Obama's education is not discussed. LotLE×talk 10:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

LotLE, he's suggesting that bios uniformly have a discrete headed section for education.

Shazaamemt, I think you mean Ray Comfort, not Ray Common. I've responded to your suggestion on your talk page. Abrazame (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to edit a lot of biographies, and have never noticed an Education section in any of them. However, most of the bios I work on are of academics, which might promote a different style. Obviously, of academics, education is always mentioned, just not ever given its own section that I am aware of. To keep it on a more direct analogy, I looked at the last ten US presidents, and found that three of them had an Education section. That's more than I would have expected. However, what it seems to show is that while such a section title is not rare for US presidents, it is also not the rule. FWIW, I found these sections particularly thin, perhaps most so in the case of Jimmy Carter, whose short paragraph on education would be better folded into Early life or a similar section. LotLE×talk 09:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

LotLE, I meant he was suggesting as in recommending, not as in pointing out. Considering that an education section isn't inherently inappropriate and merely potentially situationally inappropriate, I would say that if an article is crafted in a certain way I don't think we should be forcing it to conform to a set template whether it's to include or exclude the use of an Education paragraph. If our examination of a person's educational experience warrants its own section I think their bio should have one; if it does not, it should not. To the Carter article, if Wiki inadequately represents those experiences, it's our fault the section looks underweight, not the subject's, and eventually someone will likely discern whether there is more to be said and add it. (Though clearly, it's bad form to add sections for which there is not enough material to warrant them.) It doesn't look as baldly or pointedly brief as some of what Shazaamemt has added to other articles, and I'm hoping upon consideration of my suggestions at his talk page, he'll revert or revise his additions to those articles. Abrazame (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I guess I get the idea of recommending uniform use of such an Education section. However, I strongly disagree with that recommendation, for the reasons I indicate above. I definitely do agree, Abrazame, that there is nothing inherently wrong with such a section if it fits with the style of a particular bio, and especially if "Education" is particularly notable for that individual. In regards to the Jimmy Carter article: I actually do not particularly think that we need to flesh out his educational experiences; I simply think that his education isn't per se important to his notability (and the paragraph is appropriately brief). I don't actually edit Carter's article, so I don't feel strongly about this, but as a general principle, even if someone is highly educated that need not be all the biographically interesting in itself. LotLE×talk 22:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

New source?

Please add a segment to discuss his radical associates both through his youth and ongoing today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.17.28 (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[12] What do you guys think? I think it may provide what some of the critics of this article would call "balance" to the article. U A 17:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would first consider adding it to the presidency article way before I would think of adding it to this article. However, I would also wait for a short bit to see how it pans out. If it does pan out to be something, then by all means add it to the appropriate section/article Heck, thinking about it. If it truly pans out I wonder if it might merit it's own article to cover the over all picture beyond just Obama and what he may be doing? (I.E. the hyper politics of today?) Brothejr (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Once you parse out the source article it says "The Obama administration disagrees with its opponents." No shit. Don't see why anything in there is worth reporting, because there's no "there there". There's no meat that says anything about anything at all. --Jayron32 17:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, it says that they're actively engaging in an attempt to marginalize their most powerful conservative critics. This is noteworthy, and reported on in an unbiased, reliable way. I'm actually thinking of placing a couple of sentences regarding it in the section on his "cultural and political image", which I don't think would be inappropriate. U A 17:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean to be "actively engaging in an attempt to marginalize their critics?" It means that the Obama administration doesn't agree with their critics (who does) and seeks to make sure their own message, which they believe in (again, who doesn't believe in their own message) is given more prominence in the public sphere than the message of their opponents. There is nothing all that unsual about that, its just the language of the article. One could easily say that the authors of the article seeks to marginalize the Obama administration's disagreements with its critics, and so is using the charactizations it does to do that. Its all a big game, with each side trying to make sure the other side's message is diminished while its own message is accentuated. The source article you cite is not a dispassionate observer of that process, its part of that process, and what Wikipedia should be doing is to avoid itself becoming part of that process, on either side. --Jayron32 03:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean that. I can disagree with my critics. I can engage with my critics in debate. I can even attempt to persuade people that I'm right and my critics are wrong. That is all very different than if I attempt to "marginalize" them. That is an active attempt to make my critics seem stupid, extreme, or whatever -- almost more of an ad hominem than anything else. No, that's very different than just disagreeing with them. U A 11:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good lord! A politician is attacking his critics? Stop the presses! --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing as much as this is a little to new to be included just yet. Plus this article is written in summary style so it would first need to be included in the daughter article way before it got included in this article. Brothejr (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any policy that requires a certain time frame for information to be included. I also don't fully understand why you feel it needs to be included in the daughter article before it goes to the main article. That seems a bit like we're treating this article like the major leagues, and the daughter articles like the minors. I don't think that's how "summary style" is intended to work, but I could be wrong. U A 18:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically what summary style is that this article encapsulates what the daughter articles say at length. (I.E. this article should not include something new that the daughter article does not go into at length.) That is why things are first added to the daughter article, then it could be added to the main article per WP:Summary, specifically: this section. Brothejr (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would that information be in this article, vs. Presidency of Barack Obama? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it deals with his "political image", which is the section I'm considering adding it to before long. @Brothejr - WP:Summary doesn't preclude including information in the main article before you include it in the daughter article. At least that's not the way I read it. U A 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's how I read it, also does this have sufficient weight to be included in the main article? While it may seem big now, will it be big tomorrow or a month from now? I don't like to jump and add things unless a wide spectrum of news outlets have covered it or it has been given enough time to be shown to be huge. If either happens, then hell yea add it to the article. However, I'm not seeing that yet. I wouldn't preclude it being added to a daughter article, but not this article, at least not yet. Brothejr (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> I'm beginning to understand why some on the right are frustrated with the process of editing this and related articles. This isn't controversial, the article is in a reliable source, and it's an issue of true substance, unlike the Birther nonsense. I'll either write something up, and insert it in the next few days, or I'll just let it go and not be represented at all. I'm really rather surprised that this insertion is an issue at all. Is anything that reflects as a net negative (no matter how light of a net negative, as this is) going to be subjected to this type of scrutiny? U A 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and positive things too. Brothejr (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true. U A 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

From your proposed article: "the campaign underscores how deeply political the Obama White House is in its daily operations." Seriously this is a source you want to put out there as being well written and credible? I mean hold on second, the white house is being political, holy crap, I mean I always thought the white house was an apolitical unbiased arbitrater that never takes side on anything. See if I vote for this guy in the future, he becomes president and becomes all political. Besides mockery I do have a point I assure you. The article takes "no duh" common place realities and treats them like accusations of scandal and outrageous behavior. Of course the freakin white house is political. Of course the president refutes, margianilizes, and dissmisses critics like Rush Limabaugh. Find a president who didn't. Sure there are some critics you can debate with, and I suppose that open hostility to certain people might be unusual to the point of noteworthiness. But of course the President isn't going to debate a person like Rush Limbaugh, he's a political shock jock, not serious a rival interested in proposing legitimate legislation. Did you see Bush debate anyone from the massive community of bloggers or wacked out conspiracy theorists who spat venom at his administration? No, that would have been ridiculous, so of course he dismissed their accusations and margianilized their importance.

Of course Bush attacked and sought to discredit the values and beliefs underlying liberal political ideologies. As he should have, that's part of why conservatives elected him. So Obama attacks conservative ideas, downplays criticisms and takes shots at political shock jocks who talk negatively about him and his politics. You honestly think that is remotely noteworthy? Sure put in some sub-article about his relations with the press or something, provided you can find something decently written that actually goes into some detail (my biggest problem with the article is that it is all vague generalities and no specificis). But it's not even close to being interesting enough for the main bio. It's a point you could put in any politician's article on who works in any level of government in any country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.169.205 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

More sources

I could list each individually, but just browse the links in the top two positions here for more sources. There's absolutely no reason not to have a brief mention of this at both this, the main article, as well as the presidency daughter article. When I add it, I'll add it simultaneously to both, to alleviate any concerns with WP:Summary. U A 11:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You act like this is something new and revelatory in American politics. Didn't we just go through 8 years of an administration attempting to marginalize its critics by claiming they were terrorist-lovers or that another 9/11 would happen if they were in charge? The last 20-30 years of liberals marginalizing conservatives as gun-toting wingnuts in flyover country? How about the last 60+ years of equating anti-war folk with Communism? Marginalizing one's opponent is a part of the game, there's nothing especially new about this president doing it. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to this level. Not this overtly. If it is such a common practice, why is there such a focus on it now, when there wasn't in the past? I've never seen an administration take such an aggressive approach with one news organization. Never. U A 12:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read Alien and Sedition Acts for some historical perspective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, instead of being "never", you're saying I should have written, "not since 1798"? U A 13:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If this is just drama over the battle with Fox News, and not with "Obama marginalizes opponents" in general, then we already have a section of the presidency article about that, along with a separate article (though currently in AfD). Isn't your addition over there a little redundant? Tarc (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the articles I'm referring to talk about Fox, but they also reference how the administration is trying to marginalize the Chamber, the insurance industry, Rush Limbaugh, and others. This is not some FRINGE-y thing like the Birther nonsense. I'm an Obama voter, for pete's sake! I've helped keep the fringe crap off this article. This is not that. U A 13:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it isn't that, and I don't even see it as a negative; it just does not seem to be terribly important, at least not enough for this article. Besides, this isn't a personal beef between Obama the man and conservative critics; this is on an administrative, White House level. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't separate his "political image" (which is where I'm considering placing it) from his administration. They are part and parcel. U A 14:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering the other presidents have done the same or something similar, how does this rise to the level of something major in Obama's career/life? Why does this merit to be included in the main article? Outside the conservative circles/hyper-politics, how is this a major problem/criticism/controversy? Brothejr (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Point out news articles (nothing I posted was from "conservative circles") showing where the administrations of Bush43, Clinton, Bush41, Reagan, Carter, et al engaged in this type of public attempts at marginalizing their highest-profile opponents, and then we can talk. There's a vast difference between engaging in public debate, and simply saying of your opponents, "They're bad", which is what is currently happening around the CofC discussion, the insurance thing, as well as the Limbaugh and Fox News battles. This viewpoint isn't confined to "conservative circles" in any way. U A 15:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is that because it is currently in the news and thus is something big? As far as past presidents: Here are some on bush: [13], [14], [15] and then as far as Nixon there was this. (Also, note that at the time Bush 43 was in office, FNC was cheering his attacks on NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, etc.) Again, discounting current hyper-politics and conservative scorn, how does this merit as something big in Obama's life/presidency? Brothejr (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

None of your three diffs shows anything even remotely similar to this situation. One is a recent story from the Huffington Post blog. One is regarding a feud between Steve Doocy and Keith Olbermann, and the last is simply the Bush administration taking umbrage at ONE INCIDENT where they felt they were unfairly edited in an interview. That you compare these three things to the current situation seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on here. The administration is intentionally targeting their opponents, not for a single instance (like your last diff showed with the Bush administration), but AS ORGANIZATIONS. They're attacking the CofC, Fox News, et al, with a general campaign against them. That is what is unprecedented, and that is why it's gaining such widespread coverage. It's also why I consider it extremely foolhardy, as I personally would like to see him reelected in 2012, and this isn't going to help him at all. Ah, the irony... U A 22:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The only difference between those links and now is the hyper-politics. Remove that and it looks the same or very very similar. Either way this story is not as big as you are making it out to be and not worth inclusion in his main biography. It's pretty standard politics. The only difference is that FNC is crying up a storm trying to get as many people to pay attention. (The weird thing is only a year ago they were cheering on the Bush administration's comments/attacks on other media companies.) Brothejr (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No information about accusations

Close per FAQs Q7, Q8 and Q13

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why isn't it more information about him being accused/labeled as a socialist??? --TIAYN (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, not a forum in which to air fringe right-wing criticism? Tarc (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, why did you label (and archive) the above question (about content) as being a forum discussion? Perhaps I am missing something in the above question, but it's probably best to let the robot archive discussions. Plus, using a hat for two lines seems senseless, but maybe I'm wrong. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Forum-like or otherwise non-productive discussions are properly hidden (not archived, that is a separate function) to prevent further clutter. It is bad form to remove hat/hab tags. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many hats

Some editor are getting a bit overzealous about closing sections with {hat} tags. LotLE×talk 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Close per nothing to do about the Obama article, should be in the talk page of the talk page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Some editor are getting a bit overzealous about closing sections with {hat} tags. This talk page certainly does attract more than its share of silly off-topic ranting about matters that really, really don't relate to any conceivable change to the article. So folding those away has a good point. But it's really gone too far lately. A number of threads that merely probably won't lead to any content change in the article are being folded away... even though their proposals (even if proper to reject) do propose article changes. Mere lack of eloquence or perfect clarity on the part of the editor who starts a thread shouldn't result in a fold if there seems to be a salvageable suggestion for an edit in there (that might be better argued by someone else downthread). LotLE×talk 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have brought the issue up at WP:AN#Question --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindly worded comment. I thought I'd been careful to leave open those that had some possibility of progress for the article or still had some productive life in the discussions. However, your comment indicates lack of consensus on the process I employed. I'll turn my {hat} tag vernier down a couple of notches. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be best if you undid all the hats you've done above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I stand by the actions I took as being compliant with the FAQ. The intent of closure is to reduce clutter (of which there is quite a bit here), not inhibit discussion of changes to the article. As I noted in my comment on your Talk page, if editors have article changes they'd like to make, they should discuss it here (with some specificity, vice "look what's in the news today"), or be WP:BOLD and make and edit. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at the hook above, you personally attack the editor and close it. This is inappropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, if you are referring to me, I am confused. Which editor did I attack? I certainly meant no such thing (and, despite the misunderstandings that text-only can entail), don't see that I've violated WP:NPA in any way. However, I'm paying attention - would you please point out how?

As an additional note, FAQ 13 is supposed to reduce WP:DRAMA, not feed it, which is why I see LotLE's point. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not make remarks such as "It is interesting how many eastern European IPs, such as this one from Hungaria, seem fascinated by U.S. political articles and are anxious to keep them up to date with the latest criticism." You're getting a little extreme on this page. We don't need police officers. Let the threads resolve themselves, if they are blatantly malicious, then remove them, but that is not the case above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if that's what you mean by "the hook above", apologies that I did not understand your reference. I don't see that as a personal attack, in letter or spirit, of WP:NPA. Your interpretation of FAQ 13 stands in contrast to my reading of it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and not continue this discussion here, as it is unrelated to article improvements. Best, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with closing up obviously pointless, POV-pushing topics, especially ones that have come up repeatedly in the past or ones that can be answered in the FAQ. Tarc (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I do not think any of the recently folded topics particularly deserve to lead to any changes in the article. And I am absolutely certain that the editors placing the hats did so in the utmost good faith. I don't want to quibble about one particular heading or another, I just think it might be best if the "hat trigger threshold" was reduced in sensitivity a bit. LotLE×talk 03:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I support all of the added hats that I have reviewed. Too much foruming, not enough article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but at a minimum can we please agree that edit summaries and closing comments should be reasonably neutral and respectful? That means they're more likely to stand, and the editors participating in the now-hidden chatter don't feel like they're being scolded. That will help keep things moving. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Closure reasons:

"Hatting" based on the FAQs is the most straight forward (e.g., "Close per FAQ Q1", etc.)
"Closed - Resolved" also non-argumentative (e.g., an issue is raised, and it is addressed).
I wish we had FAQ entries for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTAFORUM, as these are pretty common types of talk discussions that most often up leading nowhere. Lacking that, I think "Close - WP:NOTNEWS" and "Close - WP:NOTAFORUM" are also reasonable - but need time for consensus to build.

Thoughts? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Those look good. I'm not sure it's necessary to restate talk page guidelines as part of the FAQ, but it wouldn't hurt to refer to them somehow. For some of the more off topic, forum-ish, or flame-fest threads I've sometimes made hat comments like "close discussion not reasonably related to proposed improvements in the article" or "archive discussion unlikely to lead to change in the article". Usually it's best to give good faith and new editors (about whom good faith is generally presumed) a little extra courtesy so they know they're being taken seriously, so I would in most cases give a serious response and let it sit for a day, unless it gets out of hand as in these edits.[16][17][18] - Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Clear WP:3RR violation - 4 reverts today: [19],[20], [21], [22].--4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring in contradiction of the FAQ...

Closed - Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...is not a good thing. Reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring here. As a reminder to editors new to this article, the terms of the Obama articles' probation is such that reverts which are less than in clear violation of the standard WP:3RR policy can lead to sanctions. Read more at the top of this page. Thanks! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Broader Measure of U.S. Unemployment Stands at 17.5%

Closed - Stale. Initiating editor blocked for WP:3RR, misuse of multiple IPs for block evasion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think that it is worth to mention it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07econ.html?_r=1&em —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.243.7 (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The 10.2% isn't mentioned, and you haven't established HOW you would want this to be mentioned. Remember that this is a biographical article about a man, not an RSS feed on the status of the nation. Until a little time has passed, we don't even know how those numbers will effect the history of the man. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone in the prior thread compared this article to Bush's, with its extensive discussion of unemployment figures. But I agree with OC that we don't yet know how this will affect Obama's life beyond the partisan rhetoric on both sides ("Obama's policies need more time to affect unemployment, a lagging indicator" vs. "No, high unemployment is a sign that Obama's policies have failed.") Stating the numbers in a vacuum of serious analysis of their effect on Obama is pointless.--chaser (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The 10.2% unemployment figure is the highest in 26 years. Throughout his entire first year in office, Obama has seen unemployment figures higher than they ever were under Bush. His economic stimulus plan has done absolutely nothing to control the rising unemployment, and he is seen as ineffective. Pretending that it will (or even might) have no effect on history's perception of the man is disingenuous at best. I was WP:BOLD and added a brief phrase on the 10.2% unemployment figure, sourced to The New York Times. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Presidents are judged, rightly and often wrongly, for things that happen during their time in office over which they had little or no influence. The general consensus among economists, as far as I can tell, is that the recession that caused the job losses is entirely due to things that happened before Obama took office: federal monetary policy, trade deficit, bad lending and insurance practices leading to a real estate and bank bubble and bust, the cost of two wars, etc. The various bail-outs and stimuli passed by congress and implemented by the administration averted a much worse recession and helped the economy and job situation in the short run (the long term effects of the deficit spending are another matter). As with every other recession, employment numbers trail the business sector by 6+ months. The economy itself bottomed out around April so the employment numbers should bottom out in October or sometime after. Some recessions are known as "V" recessions - that's what happened in Singapore and China, they bounced back as quickly as they slid. Other recessions have slow recoveries, known as "jobless recoveries"... a misnomer, it just takes a long time for unemployment to go down. This is all pretty standard. If the latest anti-Obama noise from conservatives regards unemployment, that fact should be added if at all to an article about political punditry, not the biographical article about the President. For now all we can say is that Obama inherited a recession and took a number of steps to fight it. The chips aren't in on exactly what will happen or how history will judge him. Often, history itself judges incorrectly, e.g. Hoover gets too much blame to this day for the Great Depression and FDR not enough. The 17.5% figure is interesting - the under-employment numbers are likely also at a historical high, but comparing those to the unemployment numbers is apples and oranges. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounds preachy, I was kind of addressing everyone, not just you. Back to your comment, I agree that the course of the recession will have an effect on history's perception of Obama, but it's too early to know what will happen with either the recession or people's opinion of it. The growing perception of Obama being ineffective, or perhaps ineffectual, is a real trend. I'm not sure if it's broad and strong enough to make this article, or whether that goes better in the "public perception of". Perceptions of presidents change over time of course and it's hard to keep up. Your bold edit looks fine to me because other than the word "but" (which mildly implies that the stimulus package failed) it just lays out the facts without judgment. One proviso - subsequent events might make that sentence irrelevant or incomplete, so we may have to revisit it when next month's figures come out. Thanks for bringing it up on the talk page here :) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess, firstly, I disagree slightly with my friend Wikidemon in that no economist worth his or her salt would ever exclaim "...the recession that caused the job losses is entirely [emphasis added] due to things that happened before Obama took office..." Economists never declare anything is entirely due to, well, anything. But, I think the best course of action on this kind of stuff, is to consider inclusion in the Presidency of Barack Obama article, but leave it out of his BLP. It is something that happened during his presidency, but not necessarily because of him being president. Thoughts? QueenofBattle (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I overstated the point. Nothing is absolute, particularly not the claims of economists. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Subject of leadership

Should not it be mentioned that, despite some non comparable policies, he is, as a president, better liked than George.w (jnr)?

I also believe there should be a simple graph, showing the most appreciated presidents of america, and President Obama should top it. The X axis should bear the top ten presidents' names, and the Y axis should show their percentage popularity. Who here agrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 10:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's not a very good idea. It smacks of recentism and would need reliable sources. Popularity measured where and how? John Adams lost a lot of popularity during his presidency, but gained some back later. Lincoln and Kennedy both profit from the "killed before they could screw up" syndrome. GWB got a boost from Al-Quaeda, and I would suppose that FDR got a similar boost from Pearl Harbor. It's hard to compress popularity into a single meaningful number, and it would certainly need reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If reliable sources could be found, the topic might make a good stand-alone article, e.g., Popularity of U.S. Presidents. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 4wajzkd02 that "Popularity trends of United States presidencies" or something like that could make a decent WP article (that is not this article). It might exist under some title I do not know, in fact. On a small note: "Before Lincoln could screw up"?! I would think that having led the country into its largest war, freed the slaves, amended the constitution, etc. might be enough to give folks some general room to form an opinion already... it's hard to imagine what theses bigger actions during a second term might have been. LotLE×talk 18:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: lest anyone correct my cheekiness, yes the 13th Amendment wasn't actually passed until after Lincoln's death. (LotLE×talk)

Wow, moving right past the Lincoln and Kennedy comment I would direct the initial poster here to the article United States presidential approval rating, which contains graphs. Comparing all presidents' approval ratings is nearly impossible as standardized methods do not exist and the majority of any ratings as might exist for the first 150 years, give or take a few decades, would not include women and minorities (easier to please "all" of the people most of the time when "all" of the people you count come from a relatively homogeneous group). The second editor does note an interesting point, which is that ironically, attacks on our country actually serve to galvanize support of its leadership, often actually creating a president more powerful than he was prior to that attack.

To the initial poster's point, I think it's easy for a president to be more appealing than the prior one early in his term. Most presidents' approval ratings start higher than they end. That Obama's started so very high, and Bush ended so very low, is a notable fact and something that is a part of the dynamic in this country. I think if you could present a link to an objective examination of this contrast in a reliable source, perhaps in the context of the way the two are treated or in the way they are received overseas (where Obama's rating is even higher than it is here, and Bush's was even lower than it was here), that might be something appropriate to discuss the possibility of article inclusion at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama or Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. As to noting it in his biography, I think that is a more delicate issue. Indeed some people are more likable—and more liked—than others, and it seems reasonable to note either extreme in a bio. However, it's hard to separate how much of the public's feelings at a given time are directly related to the individual and how much it is related to the way the public associates the events of the day with the person who happens to be in the White House at the time, even if there is little or no causality. I would again note the second poster's good point, in that neither Roosevelt nor Bush were personally responsible for the reasons we were attacked, yet their personal approval ratings soared immediately after those attacks and before those men had proven their capability (or incapability) of properly executing an appropriate response. Even doing that isn't enough, as Bush's father exemplifies. Still, it was a fact that people felt more positively about Bill Clinton than Bush Sr.; that more people reported wanting to have a beer with George W. Bush than with Al Gore; that people like Obama more than Bush. (What it says about those people, or whether it resulted in a better leader, is another thing.) It is part of why they were elected in the first place, it is part of their public persona, it is a part of history, and as such it seems that it belongs somewhere in an encyclopedia if it is put into appropriate context and properly referenced. Abrazame (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Health-H1N1

Closed - Stale. Initiating editor blocked for WP:3RR, misuse of multiple IPs for block evasion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Include: "Under Obama's administration the H1N1 pandemic flu demanded the greatest number of deaths in US among the countries in the world, every fourth confirmed death comes from US."

See the chart: 2009_flu_pandemic_by_country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.244.69 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a FAQ entry to cover this sort of recurring pseudo-question. Maybe:

Not everything that happens in the world, or even in the U.S., during Obama's administration is automatically relevant to his biography.

...still, doesn't everyone think we need to put in information about Obama finding water on the moon? NASA is directed by the executive (nominally) isn't it? Great work he did by not canceling the LCROSS project that was started in 2007. LotLE×talk 22:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"On March 2, Obama introduced Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius as his second choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services" So he is responsible for the people's health in US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.244.69 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What 2007?[23] PhGustaf (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish Influenza occured under the Wilson administration. You don't see anything about it there, do you? Either way, this is a biography, not a fact chart. Also, by adding this piece of information you are negatively associating the 2009 H1N1 outbreak with Barack Obama, which makes no sense whatsoever. Case Closed. Nonamer98 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I really think a FAQ edition on the point of "this is a biography, not a fact chart" would be helpful to have, and to for new editors to this article. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama did not discover water on the moon. He won the Nobel Peace Prize and is very popular but he did not discover water on the moon, nor did he invent the internet.

Like it or not, the flu would be appropriate if Obama did something stupid and thousands of Americans died of flu. Or if the flu greatly affected the economy and made a difference in his rule. Is swine flu in Gerald Ford's biography? We should try to be equal, whatever we do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuwiwebssti (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your point - see earlier comment regarding Spanish Influenza, as an example. I've not seen any WP:RS stating that the President "did something stupid and thousands of Americans died of flu", nor that it "affected the economy and made a difference in his rule". (BTW, in the U.S., I believe one refers to the "administration" of a President, not his "rule". --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't agree with my point? That means you want to say Obama is an idiot and is stupid! Read it again. I say it is NOT good to put it in the article, at least as the H1N1 situation is now. Fuwiwebssti (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I misread it! Thanks for pointing this out! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Obama-Antichrist conspiracy

Close WP:FRINGE

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I know it sounds stupid, but I think the belief that Obama is the Antichrist warrants a mention, or perhaps a seperate page. Their are thousands of people who truly believe this and it deserves a mention. Some mention should also be made with Obama's supposed connection with the end of the world in 2012. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coach John McQuirk (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article would be the one (perhaps there's a better one that exists?). Are there WP:RS that refer to this controversy? Even then, in whatever article, I'm pretty sure it would be WP:FRINGE and thus inappropriate. Take a look at the linked guidelines and see what you think. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are reliable sources 4wajzkd02, the main one being THE BIBLE. I think it deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coach John McQuirk (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreign policy updates

The section needs updating.

Obama is the first Pacific president. This is an important first. See http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUST29002920091115?feedType=RSS&feedName=ObamaEconomy&virtualBrandChannel=10441

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091114/pl_afp/japanusdiplomacyasia

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/11/14/2009-11-14_obama_hails_expanded_us_engagement_in_asia_.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/13/Obama-says-he-is-first-Pacific-president/UPI-87431258168137/

Obama confirms it himself. At worst, we can say "Obama claims to be....", and maybe we can say "Obama IS the first Pacific president".

Obama has also met with enemies, an important fact. He personally went to the ASEAN meeting, even though Burma is there, a first. See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c26b9766-d078-11de-af9c-00144feabdc0.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8361081.stm He has sent public letters to Iran, shaken Venezuela's Chevez' hand. He also made a big deal about it in the campaign.

The fact that he presided over the Security Council is a little bit of trivia that should go because this article's real estate is too valuable for trivial facts like that. Fuwiwebssti (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your points regarding the "Pacific President" are of value. I need to think about specific language to insert - do you have a suggestion? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion? How about:

In February and March 2009, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made separate overseas trips to announce a "new era" in U.S. foreign relations with Russia and Europe, using the terms "break" and "reset" to signal major changes from the policies of the preceding administration.[128] Obama's granting of his first television interview as president to an Arabic cable network, Al Arabiya, was seen as an attempt to reach out to Arab leaders.[129]

Obama continued outreach to unfriendly and lukewarm countries. On March 19, 2009, Obama continued his outreach to the Muslim world, releasing a New Year's video message to the people and government of Iran.[130] This attempt at outreach was rebuffed by the Iranian leadership.[131] In April, Obama gave a speech in Ankara, Turkey, which was well received by many Arab governments.[132] On June 4, 2009, Obama delivered a speech at Cairo University in Egypt calling for "a new beginning" in relations between the Islamic world and the United States and promoting Middle East peace.[133]

On June 26, 2009, in response to the Iranian government's actions towards protesters following Iran's 2009 presidential election, Obama said: "The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. We see it and we condemn it."[134] On July 7, while in Moscow, he responded to a Vice President Biden comment on a possible Israeli military strike on Iran by saying: "We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East."[135]

On September 24, 2009, Obama also shook hands with Chavez (insert name/title/is is General or just President?). Breaking tradition, he met with the prime minister of the Burmese dictatorship (insert name) and attended the ASEAN meeting for the first time after a long boycott, initiated because of Burma's membership. See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c26b9766-d078-11de-af9c-00144feabdc0.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8361081.stm Obama claimed the title of being the first "Pacific President". http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUST29002920091115?feedType=RSS&feedName=ObamaEconomy&virtualBrandChannel=10441

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091114/pl_afp/japanusdiplomacyasia

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/11/14/2009-11-14_obama_hails_expanded_us_engagement_in_asia_.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/13/Obama-says-he-is-first-Pacific-president/UPI-87431258168137/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuwiwebssti (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit too much detail. I was thinking a sentence and a citation would do. Let me try one (be back in a few). P.S. See WP:INDENT --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not too much detail. It's only a net increase of 2 sentences, can't be much shorter. The rest of the stuff at the beginning is already written. Fuwiwebssti (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, you are right, of course. Unless someone objects, be WP:BOLD and add it? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We do better, on this article, when we are less bold and discuss more. Please post the suggested wording here so it can be agreed to before we open up yet another potential edit war. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz about boldness and have made that point to 4wajzkd02 in a previous thread. While it may be a Wikipedia guideline, we shouldn't be recommending to editors who have embarked upon participating responsibly at this talk page that they desist from such discussion, explanation and consensus-building in favor of just cannonballing into the article. People don't like being jerked around; to tell someone to stop discussion only to yank their addition out of the article pending further discussion is unnecessary circuitous rigamarole that is likely to engender mild annoyance if not bad blood.

To avoid 4wajzkd02's other confusion, the best way to present new or amended text in the context of an existing section is, when presenting the section at the talk page, to indicate (with underlined text or bold text and struck-out text, for example) which is the preexisting text that would remain, which is the preexisting text that would be deleted (if any) and which is the new text being suggested.

To the actual suggestion, just what does the term "Pacific president" mean? I don't know how we expect casual readers to process this phrase, particularly given the (apparent) context of shaking hands with previously vilified leaders whose countries do not border the Pacific Ocean. My guess is without any other context or precedent, people will conflate the word with pacifist. For that matter, what is the point of stating that he shook Chavez' hand? (On September 24, 2009, no less, a date this edit suggests ought to go down in history.) If we are stating that he is purposely reversing George W. Bush's policy of demonizing or ignoring those who may not have shared his positions, beliefs or interests ("with us or against us"), then perhaps a few referenced words to that effect would help. If we are stating that this marked an historic turning point in the relationship of the two countries, I think we have yet to see the fruit of this and perhaps it is best mentioned in the context of such a thing once it is observed. If we are simply noting that they touched, I don't see how that is encyclopedic. He's met (and touched) plenty of leaders we don't mention. That is what presidents do. It doesn't in and of itself have any encyclopedic significance. Although the word "also" would seem to link it to something previously noted...?

Don't misunderstand my comments; I'm not suggesting that these aren't all elements of a new way of dealing with the world, nor even that they should not be noted as such in this article, I guess I'm thinking that it's presumptuous to think readers will understand what this means. If the point is that the Asean event hinted at a willingness to reengage Burma, I think we should note that this is the interpretation of that event; as with Chavez, I don't know how fine a point we want to put on why Burma was disengaged, but I assure you the average American is not going to have a clue, and the below-average American is going to have the wrong clue.

Finally, to place the characterization "unfriendly and lukewarm countries" on such a large section seems encyclopedically irresponsible. I know, I've just made the point that we ought to say something a bit more specific about Burma if it is to have any meaning, yet it would open the section to the interpretation that Burma is akin to Russia, or that Iran is akin to Egypt. Lumping together with that assessment countries that are at vastly varying stages of relations with the U.S. does not serve the reader's understanding. Abrazame (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Birth Certificate?

Closed, resolved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What about a discussion regarding Obama's failaure to produce a certified, original copy of his birth certificate? Medical Records? Anything? Ricky7877 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page.Ronabop (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifically see Q5 on the FAQ, as well as the article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.--JayJasper (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Automobile or Car.

On the subject of his fathers death it currently states that he died in an “Automobile accident”. Would car be better wording?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how one judges "better"; better for which dialect of English (if there is even a dialectical variation)? I think either is OK. As a point of interest, I ran two Google searches (I know, not a source of justification, but interesting):

"automobile accident": 447,000 results
"car accident": 1,800,000 results

"auto accident": 916,000 results

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I’m just thinking Automobile is a rather outdated term? As for those Google searches, I’m actually surprised at the number of search result for automobile.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the wrong word is "amusement". Abrazame (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We're discussing the most appropriate way to word our mention of a person's violent death and you wrote that "for amusement, (you) ran two Google searches" on vehicle accidents. I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds. Abrazame (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, rats. Thanks for pointing that out. FWIW, refactored. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Although as you note Google searches aren't an ironclad source, the best way to do one is to put the term into quotes, so you don't get every page that simply uses both words. You get fewer of both but the ratio still favors car. Auto accident is another option. Abrazame (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Good advice. I updated the results and URLs accordingly. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So, change the text to "car accident", or leave it be? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest leave it be. It's a little more formal, and that's fine. But I won't complain loudly unless you change it to motorcar. PhGustaf (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Car sounds much too informal to my American ear. Automobile is best, but auto isn't terrible. LotLE×talk 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that automobile sounds more formal and I'd offer that formality seems appropriate to the encyclopedic mention of someone's passing. I won't press for or against any of the three, but for that reason I'd be inclined to leave it as it is. Abrazame (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Car is better: short 'n' simple. But I'm not going to raise a rumpus over automobile. This is a talk page and people are of course free here to use their preferred terms for death. But what would get my goat (llama, whatever) would be passing (to mean death) in an article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No mention of ACORN?

For example: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.170.192 (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Smells like right-wing fringe criticism. Also, can’t you sign your posts for once…?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Save it for the 2012 prez election, if the Republicans make an issue of it. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Allende redirect

Closed - Fixed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Carlos Allende of philidelphia experiment fame redirects to Barack Obama. I suspect that this is informational vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.231.163 (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is, someone should be along to fix it soon. Thanks for pointing it out. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment hits 10.2%

Closed - Stale. Initiating editor blocked for WP:3RR, misuse of multiple IPs for block evasion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is a 26 year high. See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.92.22 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This information, assuming it could be added in a way that was not WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTNEWS, fits better in the Presidency of Barack Obama article than here. It is interesting how many eastern European IPs, such as this one from Hungaria, seem fascinated by U.S. political articles and are anxious to keep them up to date with the latest criticism. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To first, read for example the previous president's article to get an idea what should be in a president's article: George W. Bush: search for the word unemployment. Without it you can't write about economic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.112 (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regardless, if you have a specific change you want to make, be bold and make it. It might get reverted, per WP:BRD, and then we can have a specific discussion about improvements to the article. Otherwise, this is not a forum to discuss the topic, rather a place to discuss article improvements. Additionally, and with all due good faith, your suggestions might have more weight if you at least (a) signed your posts and (b) didn't keep switching from one IP to another. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he could also present his change here so we could discuss his context and approach first, we don't have to go through a pantomime and then discuss it. I do wish people would stop posting the day's news and expecting other people to suss out something for the article.

Incidentally, I'd point out that 26 years ago was 1983, Ronald Reagan's third year in office and he's regularly (and incorrectly) lauded as lowering taxes and presiding over an economic boon time after handily correcting a recession. Abrazame (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This IS potential fair material for the article. If there is an economy section, this should be one of the main things to be mentioned. Then only broad trends. It would be better in about a year when Obama would be in office for almost 2 years. Then the article could say he kept inflation low, unemployment went up, stock market went up, etc. But to bring up one good or bad fact to smear him or to say he can walk on water is wrong.

Also closing discussion is bad. The net effect is shutting people up and keeping the status quo. If the status quo was kept, Bush would have his 3 term. Midemer (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"This IS potential fair material for the article". Do you have a specific change you'd like to propose? Then propose it. Create a new section, rather than opening a closed one, per the "Disruption" section of Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ.

"If there is an economy section, this should be one of the main things to be mentioned". Are you unsure if there is an economy section in the article?

"closing discussion is bad". See Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ#13.

"But to bring up one good or bad fact to smear him or to say he can walk on water is wrong." Read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DIS. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

This is an important point. Obama's president has not been troubled by inflation or gasoline shortages, something that troubled Jimmy Carter's presidency. Obama's presidency has been troubled by bank instability (stabilized for now), unemployment, and health care (not an economic issue per se). So leaving out umemployment is a huge mistake. It is more important that the car bailout.

Should add at the end of economic management:

Umeployement was a major problem during the early Obama administration with unemployment hitting 10.2% in September, 2009. (see references where it says it's worst in a generation...we don't have to put that it's worst in a generation but there's no denying that unemployment is a serious issue for America http://www.gallup.com/poll/121712/unemployment-remains-pressing-issue-americans.aspx) See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101859.html http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5AB03420091112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuwiwebssti (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside other issues (such as WP:NOTNEWS - although I agree this is an issue for his administration - is it appropriate to add?), this information would be better in the Presidency of Barack Obama article, not his biography. Also, it wold be better to not re-open a closed discussion; rather, create a new section if you feel discussion is warranted. Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I added it to the Presidency of Barack Obama article, in the economy section where it is relevant. QueenofBattle (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT CLOSE THIS. LEX, JUST BELOW, SAW THAT MANY SECTIONS ARE BEING WRONGLY CLOSED.

Unemployment is one of the top two areas of Barack Obama's presidency, that and healthcare. Maybe Afghanistan may be in the running. This article has plenty of other stuff, but we must not ignore the top things, like unemployment.

I am open to what should be said. Clearly we should NOT write "It's all his fault, blame it on Barack" but there should be some mention of the economy. Fuwiwebssti (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is in fact mentioned, and has an entire sub-section. Like other sub-sections, I believe all events within the sub-section should be kept in chronological order if at all possible. This clarifies the sequence of related events. After a few weeks of observing this page, I grow weary of watching sections of the discussion being prematurely closed. Some legitimate concerns have been raised and with premature closure, there's a prejudice in favor of the status quo. This is a Featured Article about a high-profile and rapidly changing subject. Extended discussion is not only appropriate, but vital to maintaining FA status. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"first president born in Hawaii"

Just wondering, do you find it more notable that he is the first President born in Hawaii or the first President born outside of the lower 48? Carowinds (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking out of personal curiosity, or to change the article contents? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose saying he was the 1st president outside the lower 48, though it is undoubtedly true, it might be seen as giving credence to birthers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We already detail Obama's birthplace in the article. The issue of adding more trivia to the lead comes up frequently, and should be avoided if that is the implied suggestion here. LotLE×talk 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Stimulus kicks in

If you read the article that was used as a source, you will notice that this is exactly what it says.

U.S. GDP rises 3.5% as stimulus kicks in. Gains in consumer spending, inventories, housing drive growth

The U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5% annual pace in the third quarter, as massive government stimulus helped drag the economy out of the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s, the Commerce Department estimated Thursday.

I can understand why it may be premature to say that the recession is over, seeing as how it has yet to be officialy confirmed. However, we already know that the economy grew at a 3.5% pace, and that the article used as a source states that the economy started growing again exactly when the stimulus started to kick in. Therefore, wouldn't it be appropriate to include these things that are already known to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker123192 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:OR. Also, note that "as stimulus kicks in" in a headline is not nearly the same as saying "caused by the stimulus package." Furthermore, the article actually states that the cash-for-clunkers program was largely responsible for 3Q growth, and that wasn't even part of the stimulus package. Barack Obama is one of the largest and most highly-visited pages on the encyclopedia, and it is definitely a WP:BLP article, and it's on probation. Edits of the sort you've been making must be very carefully sourced. Please also note that when BLP issues are concerned, it is not considered WP:3RR to continue to revert edits that are inappropriate. Finally, I would say the place to discuss changes to that article is on its talk page, not here. That's where consensus will be developed. Frank | talk 01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am moving this thread to the page to which it applies because an edit summary in this article reads "Please see the talk page" and this isn't a personal discussion between just the two of you.

"Kicks in" as used in the source article means begins to show an effect. The stimulus has been meted out for some time, but now that the 3rd quarter numbers are out, it's a part of broad economic history and not simply an article about a particular industry. As to Frank's statement that the cash-for-clunkers program was largely responsible for 3Q growth, what do you think that was? The whole purpose was to stimulate auto sales. If you mean it wasn't part of a single bill, you are missing the point; we're not debating a single bill.

Cash-for-clunkers was stimulus. It was highly targeted, it was rolled out quickly and it worked instantly. You acknowledge that it worked, you're just loathe to use the term. Removing the word "package", if you think readers will interpret that word as indicating this was part of the initial bill, is the sort of semantic discussion we might discuss. But you are mistaken to remove the word "stimulus" when the article clearly does use that word and you clearly attribute the growth to cash-for-clunkers.

For some time we have had every 3% tick in approval ratings, when they mean very little in the real world. We may as well mention a quarterly 3.5 tick in GDP when it is quite meaningful and is in direct response to the stimulus, which was part of Obama's handling of the economy. Indeed, as quarters come and go, whether it continues, flattens out or reverses itself (or zigs and zags a bit, as these numbers often do), we can note that to some extent, and consolidate or remove or zoom away from a certain degree of detail once we have a series of data points. Abrazame (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being off topic but I wish the people who start these sort if topics (Generally relating to US economy/fringe theories/forum~soap violating discussions) would actually sign their posts for once. Do they want to be anonymous or something? Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To be fair note that this section was started by Abrazame, who signed his post. The unsigned post by Joker123192 was coppied from the talkpage of Frank, replying to a warning he'd been given on his own talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, understood in this case. Most of them don't though. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not loath to use any term...as long as it is able to be cited from reliable sources. Your suggestion that I have a particular POV to push is not supported by anything I've done or written, most especially not in relation to this article. I reverted two sets of edits which explicitly stated In the third quarter of 2009, as a result of the stimulus package, the U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5% annual pace, while one of them added bringing an end to the recession to boot. The source that was used to support these edits simply did not say either of those things. It was an open-and-shut case. The editor I reverted made changes that were in line with what the source had published, and the matter was over. And, since the conversation had effectively ended on my talk page, it would have been good form to alert me to its move over to here - not that I believe further discussion is even necessary. Frank | talk 22:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Frank, in my above post I didn't make a "suggestion that (you) have a particular POV to push". I used the words "mistaken" and "missing the point". The idea that there would be some POV on your part comes from you.

The article we're discussing is entitled "U.S. GDP rises 3.5% as stimulus kicks in".

The subhead of that article states "The U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5% annual pace in the third quarter, as massive government stimulus helped drag the economy out of the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s, the Commerce Department estimated Thursday."[24]

The first sentence of the actual article is "Along with improvements in key monthly figures on output and sales, the rise in real gross domestic product means the Great Recession is likely over in a technical sense, even as further job losses occur."[25]

Considering that this isn't buried deep in the source, though, and since you've brought it up, I do wonder why you removed the characterization that stimulus caused this rise.

You and I have encountered one another on talk pages before. I use the word "encountered" instead of conversed or discussed because nearly each time you have declared with your first response that you don't believe you have anything to discuss. (Belief being a point of view.) Talk pages aren't places for hit-and-runs and while you are free to shirk a conversation someone chooses to begin with you, I fail to see why you persist in casting yourself as arbiter of whether a conversation would have merit before you actually participate in it. Considering you often do it in instances where you are factually wrong further discredits your belief.

Since you have opened the door to discussion of your POV, I would contrast your statement "the article actually states that the cash-for-clunkers program was largely responsible for 3Q growth" with the article's own text, "Growth was broad-based in the third quarter, with final U.S. sales rising at a 3% annual pace, the fastest in more than three years. Third-quarter growth was due to higher consumer spending, a slowdown in the reduction of inventories, an increase in residential investments, and robust government spending. Home building contributed to growth for the first time in nearly four years."[26]

While the article notes that "Spending on durable goods surged 22.3%, the most in eight years. The government's cash for clunkers program boosted auto sales. Most of the clunker sales came out of inventories, but production of vehicles rebounded smartly after a sharp pullback earlier in the year. Motor vehicle production contributed 1.7 percentage points to growth, nearly half of the total GDP increase,"[27] the article also states that "Most economists don't expect the economy to grow quite as much in coming quarters, but they aren't forecasting a double-dip recession, either. Most see growth in the 2% to 3.5% range. The adjustment in inventories could add to growth for several more quarters."[28]

Frankly, neither pun nor irony intended, it seems that someone not disinclined to add positive data to the economy section—or fundamentally "mistaken" or "missing the point", as I had pointed out—would have found this article a fount of reliably sourced material to be added and cited. (Notice how I did that, in a nod to your habit, I wikilinked two of the most fundamental Wiki guidelines. Unlike yourself, I did so after having followed them.) Okay, that one parenthetical was sarcasm. Again to use your term, the POV of yours with which I take issue is the one that emboldens you to ignore factual points I raise that are relevant to editorial work in an article when it goes to causality and context that is essential to an understanding of the issue. If you are unable or unwilling to examine the facts I raise, you are welcome to stay away; if you do comment, the most constructive way to do so is to process and address the editorially salient factual points raised. I won't insult your intelligence by linking that obvious concept.

One thing you are absolutely right about and for which I apologize is that I failed to notify you that the thread had been moved here. I would note that I failed to notify the other editor as well, so it wasn't personal. It seems that in the five hours after your above post, you didn't notify the other editor either. I've rectified that.

To save the time of other editors, I point out that all five links are to the two pages of the single article referenced in Joker's first edit. Abrazame (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on the content of the source and the focus of this article, I remain convinced that the original edits were inappropriate. You are parsing words very selectively, and providing links to the article is not the same as actually sourcing claims properly. For example, the lead paragraph, which you rely heavily on, does say, in part: "...as massive government stimulus helped drag the economy out of the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s, the Commerce Department estimated..." Well. There are two very key words in that bit: helped and estimated. The latter, especially, is a major clue that the article is saying something other than what it may appear to be saying at first glance. This view is supported in the following paragraph when it is noted that the recession is not officially over and such a determination won't be made for months. The use of the word estimated is really quite key here, and it is a major clue that the information isn't appropriate for an article about Barack Obama.

As to how to characterize cash-for-clunkers, the source didn't claim it was part of the so-called "stimulus package", and it is inappropriate for us to do so here. That is not a POV; it is adherence to our core principles. In fact, the phrase "stimulus package" simply doesn't appear anywhere in the source.

Regarding POV, you made the accusation by writing You acknowledge that it worked, you're just loathe to use the term. I've already responded to that; I'm merely pointing out here the specific place where you accused me of a POV, a claim which you denied. Frank | talk 11:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich that you're interpreting the words "helped" and "estimated" as being contraindicative of the things they're describing, and your focus on the word "package" instead of the word "stimulus" seems utterly flummoxed, yet you're suggesting it's I who am parsing words "very selectively". (Which words do you mean?) If the article states the stimulus "helped" the GDP, we represent that. If the article states the Commerce Dept. "estimated" the recession is technically over despite continuing unemployment, we represent that. I really don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.

Surely you don't see anything in my posts that suggest we put Joker's original edits back into the article if there was something lacking (or overstated) in those edits, so you can disabuse yourself of that perspective. What I am doing is taking issue with the difference between what the source material stated and what you put into the article and declared in your explanations of such.

As to "package", you are still not addressing the fact I specifically stated we didn't need to use the word "package" if you think people will think that means a single bill rather than the array of stimulative efforts taken by the administration. I've already indicated that the source mentions cash-for-clunkers among the stimulative efforts that had a real impact on GDP. You are still failing to address the fact that this was a stimulus measure and it did indeed stimulate the economy.

The second sentence of Wiki's own Cash for Clunkers reads, "The program was promoted as providing stimulus to the economy by boosting auto sales, while putting safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the roadways." That article cites The Economist as writing,

"the boost in demand that the rebates have brought about is exactly the sort of stimulus that is urgently needed to escape what John Maynard Keynes called a “liquidity trap”. According to his theory, consumers may become so worried about the economy that they cling to as much liquid wealth as possible, cutting their spending sharply and thereby triggering precisely the slump they feared. Moreover, as stimulus policies go, cash-for-clunkers looks to be unusually effective."

The New York Times wrote, in "A Modest Proposal: Eco-Friendly Stimulus":

"Economists and members of Congress are now on the prowl for new ways to stimulate spending in our dreary economy. Here’s my humble suggestion: “Cash for Clunkers,” the best stimulus idea you’ve never heard of."[29]

Why, it's as if he's met you. Of course, that was written in July 2008, before Obama was even elected. "Cash for Clunkers: Real stimulus", a report from CNNMoney.com's senior writer is also referenced in our article.[30]

This all without even venturing into the wider world via Google, as one might do. It's not your intent focus on certain of my words that I mind, it's your utter disregard of most of the rest of them that I find unhelpful to an editorial discussion. Abrazame (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)