Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Don't Ask Don't Tell is NOT Foreign Policy

Please move the summary under Domestic Policy. Flatterworld (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it until someone chooses to put it where it belongs. Flatterworld (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've placed it under domestic policy; I'm not averse to discussing other locations/headings, but it is clearly not foreign policy in any way. I'm sure it was only there by innocent error at some point. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good where you put it.LedRush (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing Gitmo

I am sure this has been brought up before, but doesn't it seem odd to state "and ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010." and not mention the fact that this has not happened? It leaves the reader with the impression that the camp was closed. I'm not sure if the whole issue should be moved to foreign policy (or even domestic policy) and omitted from the first days section; or if a brief explanation in the first days section can just clearly state that this hasn't happened (and that Obama has changed his opinion on this matter).LedRush (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest adding

"As of March 9th, 2011, the political fact checking site PolitiFact rated this as "promise broken."

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One should keep in mind what our article on Gitmo itself has to say, that the closing of the camp has been prevented by congressional action and that Obama has continued (at least as recently as January of this year) to try and work with congress to get it closed. They won't authorize the funding needed to move prisoners. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make the language here any less misleading for a reader.LedRush (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OC, do you have a cite for that? I'll be happy to rewrite, or add an additional sentence, but we'll need a reference. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

LR, it means we have to take care when using loaded statements like "Obama broke his promise," we have to take care to report the facts. KC, from our Gitmo article, I have the following: Senate blocks funds following initial Obama order http://www.webcitation.org/5jPWyaCDq Obama continues process towards closure (as much as he can without the power of the purse) following the congressional action http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-closure-dentention-facilities-guantanamo-bay-naval-base and Obama signs the Defense Authorization Bill in January 2011 while expressing opposition at language preventing the transfer of detainees and saying he will continue to fight them http://federalnewsradio.com/?sid=2226350&nid=35 --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously we must be succinct. We cannot have the level of detail here as in the Gitmo article. What do you suggest for verbiage, OC? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly?:

In his first few days in office Obama issued executive orders and presidential memoranda directing the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq.[112] He also ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010,[113] but during his first two years in office he has been unable to persuade Congress to appropriate funds required to accomplish the shutdown.[OC's source(s)]

Fat&Happy (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too.LedRush (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added the above phrasing. I substituted a substantially similar msnbc.com article for the one from Breitbart in order to forestall any questions as to whether the latter is a reliable source, even though both articles are from the AP. I also tweaked the wording of the paragraph a bit – what I consider minor stylistic changes, but if anyone disagrees I won't object to those parts being changed back.

Adding: I just noticed the whitehouse.gov ref title says "Dentention Facilities". I'm not sure what the MoS says on this, I've left it for now. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Air strikes against Libya

Are the air strikes against Libya or Muammar Gaddafi's forces? Seems the latter to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the statement accordingly in the course of a few other edits. Just a note here if it's not obvious. I don't think the point counterpoint style (obama said "blablabla", however earlier he said "albalbalb") is the right way to present the fact that there's criticism & a constitutional issue (however weak) over presidential authority and legitimacy. We just present the facts, we aren't supposed to do that in a way that implies hypocrisy or inconsistency. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What if Obama really has been hypocritical and inconsistent? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 131.227.157.34, 26 March 2011

Barack Obama is the 43rd president of the US president as Grover Cleveland served 2 non-consecutive times

131.227.157.34 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: that makes Cleveland thus #22 and #24. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The wonderful thing about standards is there are so many of them. If one does not suit your purpose then another is sure to work. Wikipedia however follows the majority of published scholarship. Every history book I can remember lists Cleveland as both #22 and #24, making Barack Obama the 44th U.S. president. --Allen3 ^talk 20:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Press conference photo is horrid

Why, oh why, is the photo of Obama giving a press conference shot from outside the room in the bushes? <sarcasm>Are sex predators now contributing photos to wikipedia?</sarcasm>

I suggest removing the photo or getting a good one. WB Frontier (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Needs improvement

I'm guessing you are talking about the image to the right. Yeah, it's pretty awful. There have to be far better images of his press statement that night. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that in the article? I think you both are right, I don't see what use that particular picture has in the main article. Dave Dial (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Image cropped and levels crushed a little

Image cropped and levels crushed a little, maybe loses a little of the remoteness but gains some emphasis from the enhanced image clarity. -- Felix (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is packed full of irony and metaphor, the foreground branches are a bit too heavy though, especially on the left. The POV of the photographer suggests intimacy with the environment and it is most certainly taken by someone who is within an inner sanctum yet detached from the actual proceedings. I like the way Obama is framed in the window pane, detached and yet the focus of the room. I actually like it but I am not sure the article is the correct place for it. On a lighter note, maybe it is Obama viewed from a Bush POV.-- Felix (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

@Felix, Punny, very punny. Cliff (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Civilian casualties in Libya

Currently in the main article "Obama ordered the use of Tomahawk missiles...in order to protect civilians..."

but from 2011_military_intervention_in_Libya: "Libyan health ministry claims 114 civilians killed and 445 wounded.[11] The U.S. military claims it has no knowledge of civilian casualties.[12]"

Here this should be also added to balance the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.186.52 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how dictatorships consistently build paediatric hospitals so near to and with the same design as weapons factories, isn't it? Shamelessly stolen from the Liberal Democrat Voice forums Sceptre ^(talk) 22:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That one isn't even really trying hard to convince the world media. Seems to be to busy fighting for his own life.TMCk (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Very clever, Sceptre. But its even more obvious to everyone but you that raining cruise missiles and 500 pound bombs down on a country will kill civilians. Jgui (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, duh, obviously there will be collateral damage. But I'm not sure if the Libyan health ministry, or, indeed, the US Army, are actual RSes when these claims tend to be more propoganda than anything. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there independent confirmation of the number of dead civilians? I agree with Sceptre, there is always collateral damage in this type of conflict and also propoganda is not uuncommon as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, as of yet there is not independent confirmation. I've been watching CNN, MSNBC, FOX and Al-Jazeera since the fighting started. Al-Jazeera is probably the most critical of the action, and reports the Libyan government's statistics on civilian casualties, but doesn't provide confirmation. In addition, I believe recently a CNN journalist says he was present when a casket was open and shown to be empty. Finally, U.S. Secretary of Defense is claiming that the Libyan government is moving corpses from city morgues to locations where the coalition strikes occurred in order to make the casualties appear higher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.249.204 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is all missing the point. The language in the article makes it clear that the PURPOSE of the attacks is to protect civilians from Gaddafi. Whether or not that purpose is ultimately successful is a separate question. --B (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

America fires missiles at Libya

Is there any reason why there is no appearance of the word Libya in the main article? This should be in foreign policy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.43.65 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that should be in this article, we should wait so we can provide the full story. SMP0328. (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, this is Obama's biography. This little skirmish in Libya is of little biographical significance and we cannot know if it will become significant in the future. This current event is better suited to Wikinews, with perhaps some coverage in the article concerning the Presidency itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

On cnn it is said that this is Obama's war. I don't see any reason to skip this war, as looking that in the main article it is already Iraq war and war in Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.146.115 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a subsection under foreign policy about the on-going operation in Libya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.177.58 (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be forced to agree, opinions aside, that if we're going to have sections about Iraq & Afghanistan, we will need one for Libya. Even though it is not technically a war in the sense that we have not declared war on Libya, we also never declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan and both have previously been agreed on as relevant to this article under the foreign policy section as wars. Jarland (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't place Iraq or Afghanistan on the same level as Libya with Obama. The U.S. didn't even proposed the UNSC resolution. I think we should see it plays out to see how it effects him and his presidency.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would yield to your point on this. Some matters are best written of after the smoke has cleared. Jarland (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this is front page news. The fact that Barack Obama won the presidential election was reported here in his Wikipedia biography within minutes. His decision to take action against Libya, as well as criticism from the anti-war movement, should be reported here with the same speed. It is irresponsible to refrain from this topic because "the smoke hasn't cleared." If it's reported in multiple reliable sources, and there's no question of that, then the only remaining question is weight according to WP:WEIGHT; and I would suggest that any time an American president chooses to use military force, that decision has an enormous anount of weight. The decision is controversial. Comparisons to Bush's invasion of Iraq are already being made. And Wikipedia has been accused in reliable publications such as The Daily Telegraph of whitewashing this article. We need to report this in a fair and neutral manner, giving space to criticism. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't be serious about your comparison with him winning the election, or are you?TMCk (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My goodness. So you are comaring enforcing the UN imposed no-fly zone to the first African-American becoming the POTUS and the invasion of Iraq? That just goes to show your perspective is entirely skewered and the manner in which your claims are presented are totally biased. Absolutely absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

According to reliable source CBS News, Obama said this: "Colonel Qaddafi needs to step down from power, you've seen with great clarity that he has lost legitimacy with his people." [1] So it's clear that he wants regime change, just as Bush did in Iraq. The difference is that unlike Bush, Obama has not obtained bipartisan approval from Congress. This is a very controversial decision. The Tomahawk missile strikes have killed dozens of civilians. While the importance of the story is not equal to Obama's electoral victory, our coverage of these events (while not giving equal WP:WEIGHT) should be equally prompt and responsible. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of similarities and differences between the two events, and many of them won't be known until events unfold and/or until we see how the sources regard it. Not getting congressional approval is one of a dozen or two aspects to the domestic political implications. There's also domestic approval polls, criticism that it took too long, that we're letting UN approval be the deciding factor, that the US isn't asserting a lead role, that we don't have a clear goal, etc., etc. It seems likely that this will be seen as at least a moderately important event in Obama's career (worth half a sentence) to a significant one (worth a paragraph), but we just don't know, and anything we write now is going to be tentative. If Qaddafi quickly capitulates and attention now moves to other countries, it could basically be a footnote like the Reagan-era missile attacks of Clinton-era bombing in Serbia. There are any number of scenarios where it could evolve or blow up into something far more significant. I think it's safe to say something very brief and neutral for now, something to the effect that after initially hesitating to use force, Obama authorized military involvement in Libya after Arab League and UN approval, saying that Col Qaddafi should be removed from power. Forgive me, but that's a very loose inexact hash at it. Whatever the weight and approach here, it's about 2-4 X as important to the "presidency of" article, as that article not only focuses on his term in office but also encompasses things his administration does including the state department, military, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps(or in all probability) this event may end up being included in this article. But the better place for it to be argued is the Presidency of Barack Obama article. I would also note that Obama called for President Mubarak to step down in Egypt, and that is not in this article either. It's not even in the Presidency of Barack Obama article. Dave Dial (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the context of threatened airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites, Obama also had this to say regarding presidential authority to use military force without congressional approval: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." [2] Reported in reliable source The Boston Globe. So he has contradicted his own position on the issue of presidential authority for unilateral military action. Glenn Greenwald has criticized him for this at Salon: [3] This is noteworthy enough for a half-sentence in the last paragraph of the lede, and for a sentence or two in the appropriate section; the Presidency of Barack Obama article is also an appropriate place for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned here at all. Obama ordered the firing of Tomahawk cruise missiles and human lives have been lost. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh. Once again, that does not apply and the fact you are asking for this to be in the lede shows that you are totally misreading the situation. How does that apply to UN approved actions? The Security Council approved no-fly zone? NATO and UN approved enforcement? This is definitely not the action you describe. Dave Dial (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to sign out soon and I'll be scarce, but I think we're all talking too much about substance and analysis of the real world situation. That's all very important in its own right, but this article really has to reflect the weight of what people (i.e. the reliable sources) are saying. The questions of presidential powers, and posturing over why the US and its president sometimes act and sometimes do not, are no doubt there, as is the predictable punditry and criticism over that. But as I said above they are among dozens of other issues raised. One or two sources (or even twenty) plus an argument as to why it's important doesn't amount to a convincing case for inclusion here. The real argument is that it's one of the major issues that the collective body of sources mention in connection with the presidency. And again, I think it's just too early to know. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon, as I see you use double standard! You say only that we should wait for the end of the war. But war in Afghanistan is still ongoing and that is already in the main article. So what is the difference between the war in Libya and the war in Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.42.18 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Eventually there will be a section in this article (and other related articles) on the policy decisions that President Obama takes concerning the change that is taking place throughout the Middle East right now. US involvement in the UN intervention in Libya will certainly be a part of that. But there is a lot that is not clear right now. Best to wait and get it right. Something we can put in the article should start to take shape sometime soon, certainly within the next few weeks. A lot also depends on how things play out in Libya over the next few days. WikiDao ☯ 01:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Double standard indeed! The Afghanistan operation has been going on for 9+ years. The Libya operation is in its second day or so? Neither is a war in the classic sense, and so far the two are quite different. We don't have to wait 9 years to change the article, but perhaps another week. Anyone who wants up to the minute current events news can find better sources than Wikipedia, as we do not operate on a deadline. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the situation is noteworthy enough, and supported by sufficient RS that we can make a small mention of it now. We can make absolutely certain that whatever goes into the article mainspace is 100 percent accurate. Anything that is remotely questionable, about which there is even an iota of a shadow of a doubt, can be kept out. But I repeat, Wikipedia has already been accused by respected, mainstream, reliable sources of whitewashing this article. Therefore a few basic facts should be added immediately. We can expand and change the section later, or even remove it if Qaddafi capitulates quickly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. It's just, President Obama's policy on this has not been too definitively expressed yet. A major policy speech would help a lot, hopefully that will come soon. WikiDao ☯ 19:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, Obama ordered the Tomahawk missile strikes. Clearly, he did it without congressional approval. We can report those facts and the controversy they've caused (since they're covered by abundant reliable sources) and later, we could add any policy statements Obama may choose to make. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not required to have congressional authority. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

He said himself, two years earlier, that he's required to have congressional authorization. "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." [4] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Obama could say that the president has the power to grant titles of nobility, it doesn't mean he legally does. His statements in interviews do not carry legal weight. Besides, define "imminent threat to the nation," certainly the pirate situation off of Somalia has shown us that ships that travel through the Mediterranean are of import to our national security and well-being, and a newly openly hostile Gaddafi threatens that. It isn't a defined term. Later in the same article he noted that it is always "preferable" to have the prior consent of Congress, not that it was "mandatory." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a BLP article is the place to add 'Gotacha' style arguments that are obviously false. Unless you believe that Obama included the actions of GHWB, Clinton and GWB enforcing the Iraq no-fly zone, which he obviously did not. I know that some on the fringes of the left, and the right, are making these types of claims but they don't hold up to reality. And the vast amount of reliable sources bears that out. Now, we can search news articles for Obama's statements on military action that has been approved by the UN Security Council and NATO, and look at the 1973 War Powers Act, but it should be a waste of time when all we have to do is use common sense here and know there is a huge difference between an invasion(March 2003-Iraq) and enforcing UN/NATO backed no-fly zones. Let's wait until there is time for the actions and policy to be written about and vetted. Dave Dial (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A section on Libya was added by a user who hasn't even commented here. I'm not convinced it is appropriate at this time. We are two days into the campaign, and at this point, it is impossible to tell the long-term, historical context of this action in the life (not just the presidency) of Obama. Grsz 11 00:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It definitely did not belong as it was, based on length and detail it was larger than the sections of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Dave Dial (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, way too detailed for now. It was an F-15 that crashed too.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note here. Let me raise some issues with your whole-scale reversion of my addition, however. First, WP is not designed to wait for a "long-term, historical context". That it is kept up-to-date is its greatest strength. Second, this is significant and is reported that way in all the US and world press because it is the first military action that Obama has taken without inheriting it from Bush - and clearly if Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel have their own sections in this biography (and they do), then Libya also belongs here. Third, we are four days into the campaign, not two days into the campaign, and we have already fired more than 160 Tomahawk cruise missiles and lost an F-15 fighter in the conflict - this is not a minor affair and there is no reason to try to censor this out of Obama's page. Fourth, I am quoting Obama directly in two cases - so I do not appreciate your claim of POV. And fifth, blanking of text from WP is normally reserved for additions that are questionable or uncited - but I am using reliable sources (Washington Post, NYTimes, RTT news, CBS news) and can easily find multiple sources for every thing I've cited if you question the significance of any of this.

Nevertheless, I've changed my addition to remove the cited details of the F-15 loss and number of missiles that I previously added, since I can see your point that it may be too much detail. It is now comparable in length to the other subsections (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel) in this section. I hope you are pleased with my revised version. If you wish to make any changes, though, then I ask you to please modify the text that I have added, rather than reverting out my whole addition as you just did. Please bear in mind that I took time and effort to research and properly cite the text I added, and a complete reversion of it is generally against WP policy. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment; The world will not end if this is not added immediately - "as a record of history it must necessarily be a few steps behind current events." Wikipedia is Not News. See WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)." KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I do mostly agree with the removal of the Israel section, I reverted the article to before the 2nd attempted addition of the Libya section. And once again, before it's added here we should wait, and even then, it probably won't be as large as the 2nd attempt. Dave Dial (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the page you referred me to, having read it many times. However, it appears that you are in need of another look at the page yourself. You have failed to answer an essential question about your blanket reversions of any mention of Libya from this article - namely, what is the advantage to waiting several weeks to include this highly relevant information? Since there is no apparent advantage, one is forced to conclude that there is censorship going on here - and let me remind you that Wikipedia is Not Censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. You may personally find it unpleasant to include the fact that Obama has initiated a military action against a foreign country, but your personal views are clearly irrelevant. This is a significant and highly newsworthy step that Obama has taken, and it should not be censored out of this article. Let me quote: "Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive".

Your contention that this is "routine news" comparable to things like "announcements, sports or celebrities" is ludicrous. This is a military action against a foreign country initiated by Obama who has stated that the US is in a leadership role. We have already fired hundreds of cruise missiles into this country and made hundreds of fighter jet bomber runs over the country, and we have crashed one of our fighter jets in the country in the process. As my citations make clear, this is being covered in every news outlet in this country and the world. And you're comparing it to "celebrity announcements"?

Since no one has found any issues with the paragraph I included, other than to compare it to "celebrity announcements" which it clearly is not, I have re-added it. If you take issue with the cited sources, perhaps you could raise your issues here - what is wrong with the Washington Post, CBS News, etc.? Please do not delete this again - please remember that you do not own this article; it is a joint project contributed to by many editors. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is a question of sourcing, but one of relevance. The question that needs to be asked is "is the bombing of Libya connected to Obama the person (i.e. this article) or the Obama presidency (i.e. Presidency of Barack Obama). This only started within the last week or so, so it may be too soon to say if the Libya action is indelibly linked to Obama in the way that Bush is to Iraq or LBJ and Nixon were to Vietnam. And please take care with the "censorship!" thing, that is not something to be tossed lightly into conversation. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Given President Obama's stance on war in general and his whole campaign the fact that he authorized this attack is definately notable and historic. We have RS's to spare that are talking about this event. There is no reason it cannot be incorporated in a neutral tone, and is quite ridiculous to imply that will have no lasting impact. Arzel (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are trying to add this material in order to set up a "he said X, but now does !X" type of hypocrisy assertion. Tarc (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I was making no assertation about the specific merits of the information. I noticed it was deleted as WP:SYNTH and it is clearly not synthesis of material. I restored is as an improper use of WP policies. Arzel (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As I noted about, it wasn't even the U.S. that proposed the UNSC Resolution. This wasn't like Iraq or Afghanistan where the whole effort was U.S. led. The U.S. spent the last week trying to pass off military command and control to someone else but only an organization like NATO has the ability aside from them. And, after only a few days of bombing, who says this war will be as protracted? I agree with the "wait" votes here. I think Obama is walking a fine line with the crisis now and is there is still more to be seen before it is notable and important enough to be in his bio.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc's comment about "hypocrisy assertion" is right on the mark. It is a clear and unadulterated case of WP:SYNTH. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we try to keep our alleged breeches of policy straight here? Reflecting what reliable sources like CBS News say may be considered undue weight, but it's certainly not WP:SYNTH. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but adding three different pieces all together in the same paragraph, one after the other as happened in this case, in order to reach a larger conclusion, is. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That second paragraph, below, used one reference. I don't see you point.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I have retired from this debate I will try to explain the point one last time. Yes, of course if you have the second part of the paragraph covered by a single citation you are covered, there is no SYNTH. It is when you try to graft this to the larger event of the Libyan mission approved by Obama where SYNTH by construction happens, i.e. not the SYNTH as given by the definition per se, but the SYNTH that happens when you connect two events of unequal importance and you present a distorted picture to the reader by making the lesser event (second paragraph) look as big as the main event (The Libyan mission, presumably approved by a larger margin than the disapproval numbers of a few senators). So yes it is not textbook SYNTH but still the grafting of two events to create a novel and misleading perception. But when I was writing my edit summary reverting I was not remotely expecting all this flak, otherwise I would not have done it. Please see this also. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya

The Libya material, full of WP:SYNTH, has been inserted yet again by edit-warring. Since this article is under probation, I think editors familiar with the probation terms should handle this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not synthesis of material or original research. No novel interpretation is being made. You may not like what is being said, which is fine, but it is not synthesis. Arzel (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see my reply above: [5]. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I read your comment. No larger conclusion was being made. Arzel (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was. In short: Part I: Obama declares action against Libya. Part II: Congress is acting against Obama because he may not have the authority to do what he has done, including use of the weasel word "Some" (congressmen..). Part III: Obama did not keep his election promise. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's SYNTH if there's no source for the conclusion. It's use of unreliable sources (or improper use of primary sources) if we're using an opinion piece. And it's POV, wrong tone or simply not correctly reporting the sources, if we're reproducing on Wikipedia the argument made in external sources rather than including a sourced statement that the argument has been made. If there's sufficiently strong sourcing for the premise that commentators have criticized Obama for saying that the President does not have the authority to do X, then doing X, we could include that as information about what commentators say. However, there is still the weight and relevancy question - is that really the most germane thing about the Libyan conflict, and is that pertinent to this particular article? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your points. If someone reported all the points I referred to and reached a similar conclusion then it wouldn't be SYNTH to report their conclusion. I am also not sure about the weight and relevance of this section as presently written. I haven't followed the politics surrounding this issue so closely as to make a call on this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh..I can see both the pro and con side of the synthesis claim. And you and Wikidemon makes a good points about the reaching. In any case, there should be no doubt about the POV manner in which the section was added, and there are definite weight issues too. I mean, the threat of 'impeachment' was put in because of Kucinich? Based on what? That's just laughably POV and undue weight. I'm pretty sure something will be added here, it's already in the Presidency of Barack_Obama article, in what I would describe as a pretty fair manner. Of course the whole "use of military force without prior congressional approval was constitutional" question is not a real issue at this point. And is probably one of the reasons people should wait on adding it. Everyone knows, and almost every source makes this point when mentioning this, the President has the Constitutional powers to use the military. By both the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act. People seem to want to bring up the answer Obama gave the Boston Globe in a Q & A in December of 2007. But people seem to want to leave out the question was specifically about bombing Iran's nuclear sites, and the rest of the answer he gave. I think reasonable minds can all agree that there is a significant difference between bombing Iran's nuclear facilities without even informing Congress, and enforcing a UN/NATO backed no-fly zone over Libya. Dave Dial (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon, thank you. Dr.K, if you agree with Wikidemon, then I will ask you to take the trouble to read the only reference that is used in the second paragraph that I added and which you reverted out, apparently without reading. If you take the time to read the cited article from CBS news, you will see that my paragraph is not SYNTH, but a condensation of the points of that article.

Here is the full text I added that Dr.K deleted:

• Obama ordered the US military to take a lead role in air strikes against Libya as part of enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Obama called for Tomahawk missile and B-2, F-15 and F-16 fighter bombing strikes against Libyan targets: "'The way that the U.S. took leadership and managed this process ensures international legitimacy, and ensures that our partners, members of the international coalition, are bearing the burden of following through on the mission,' the President said."
• Some members of the US Congress questioned whether Obama had the constitutional authority to order this non-defensive military action and whether his action was impeachable In a 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, then-senator Obama stated: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

I will address the question of weight and relevancy separately, once we have agreed that this is not SYNTH. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jgui: First I object to you using my name in relation to the revert because I was not the only one who reverted the section. Second I don't appreciate your assertion that I did not read what I reverted because I did. Adding two events i.e. the Obama action regarding Libya and the Congressional reaction in the same paragraph but from different sources is a kind of SYNTH because we don't know what is the weight of the Congressional reaction versus the legitimacy of the Obama action. Let me put it another way. If Obama's action has great legitimacy and everyone is cheering him on and then you add the grumblings of a few senators from a political commentary and from another source in the same paragraph you are actually creating SYNTH by construction. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

DrK, in addition to reverting out my change with the curious claim of SYNTH, you accused me of "edit-warring" and threatened that "editors familiar with the probation terms should handle" my edits. Do I need to remind you that reverting out a well researched and cited addition to an article is not a good way to make friends? Jgui (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way when you address me you don't misread facts? How did I threaten you by simply deferring to other people more knowledgeable than me about the sanctions to see if any edit-warring continued? And I did not accuse you of edit warring. I just let you know that the reversions in this article should be limited. Finally I was not planning to make friends, I was trying to improve this article as best I could. As far as SYNTH please read the rest of my comments. And one more time now, I was not the only one who reverted your edits. This means your edits are problematic to say the least. So please do not make this personal once more. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you considered that personal. My point was that you made a very aggressive edit and personal statement about my editing at the very start of this section. If you fail to see that, we'll have to agree to disagree. Furthermore, it is curious to me that you are bothered by my stating that you reverted my edit, when you did. My comment about making friends was an attempt to be light-hearted - the important point that I was trying to make is that WP is a joint project, and blanking out a relevant, well-researched and properly cited edit made by another editor is not approved of here. I'll let you have the last word, but don't see the point in continuing this discussion. If you wish to continue, please take it to my Talk page. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My statement was not personal because I did not refer to you personally but to your edit. I am sorry if you felt slighted by it, it definitely was not my intention. But just check this: one of the few times your edit was reverted and it was not by me. And your comment about blanking out was a little below the belt when addressed to a fellow good-faith editor but I will just let it go, all in the spirit of cooperative editing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, now that I checked the article history, I can assure you, that I was not referring to you at all. You did not do any edit-warring at all with respect to my edit. Another editor reverted me and I was referrring to their edits when I created this section. I hope this clears the confusion. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere close. Undue weight, yes; synthesis, no way. Even if that is what had happened here, (and it isn't; there was one paragraph about the attacks and another about the adverse reactions) there is no requirement that new paragraphs be created every time a new source is used. Picturing an encyclopedia created under such rules is downright comical. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe from too much laughing you didn't hear what I said. I said that first we have to establish the acceptance and approval of the Obama action. If it is high, then adding a few grumblings at the end of the, let's say, massively approved Libya action, is WP:UNDUE and constructively speaking we create an artificially negative opinion of the action to advance a new position. This is the very definition of SYNTH. It may not be textbook SYNTH by adding two different facts from two different sources to advance a new position but it is SYNTH by constructing two events of unequal weight to create a false perception. This is what I meant by SYNTH by construction. Having said that I see from the reactions here that the environment is a bit heated and with this I withdraw from this discussion and from borderline uncivil comments. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

DaveDial, I can see your point about talk of impeachment. Although the cited article discusses impeachment, it is apparently only Kucinich, so I would support removing the "and whether his action was impeachable" from the first sentence (I struck it out above). On the other hand, there are multiple members of congress, of both parties, who are complaining of the unconstitutionality of his action so I believe that should stay. Jgui (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it isn't synth; the CBS News blog connects Libya and his statement. But, I do also agree with the comments above about source (blog) reliability and whether it belongs in Obama's biography. I did quick search and found FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC 1 2 references on it, so I don't doubt the Congress battle isn't notable but I don't think it belongs in the biography right now. Also, Congress feels more left out rather than it being unconstitutional. If it became serious enough that there were hearings and this issued garnered much more attention, I agree it should be in the article. Otherwise, I think it is covered in the presidency article. Continuing this discussion may be more fruitful when the situation is developed more.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. I found many others which I can list if desired. One of particular relevance is from Politico ("Did Obama lose Congress on Libya") that opens with this: "President Barack Obama is facing growing anger from lawmakers who believe he overstepped his authority by launching missile strikes into Libya without first seeking the consent of Congress.The criticism is from all directions: from moderates, like Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.); from those on the far left and right, like Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), who believe the president acted outside the Constitution; and from the establishment on both sides, including House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut and Republican Rep. Candice Miller of Michigan, a self-described “hawk.”" Jgui (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment is directed at Jgui. Please do not re-thread my comments. That is twice today you have removed my intended threading and replaced it with your preference. The only reason to alter another editors threading is to avoid confusion or if the other editor makes a threading mistake. That definitely did not fit either of your alterations of my comments. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll just adjust mine to match yours, if you refuse to set yours to match those of the other editors you are having a discussion with. Sorry if comment indentation is a sensitive topic for you. Jgui (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article ought to mention Libya now. I think Jgui's currently proposed addition is about right in weight, neutrality, and content and would support adding it or a version of it to the article at this point. WikiDao ☯ 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree in principle, disagree in the specifics. I don't see any realistic doubt that some part of this needs to be included in this article as the previous bombing of Libya and the relatively minor invasions of Panama and Grenada are in the bios of the presidents then in office. I don't think the added/reverted/proposed change is right at this time. The first paragraph contains unnecessary detail; "air and missile strikes" would suffice without specifying the specific missiles and four aircraft type involved; similarly, "a UN resolution" is enough. The quote is fluff, and the space could be better used for a brief explanation of the reason for the UN resolution, as is (was?) found in the Presidency article. If we need to say "a lead role", it should mention, based on RS, that this lead role was somewhat involuntary, being necessitated by the reluctance of European allies to take such a lead.

The second paragraph is questionable. Jgui has already agreed to the removal of the impeachment comment, but I'm not sure how big a deal it is that members of Congress got their feelings hurt because Obama didn't ask their permission before exercising his authority as CinC. This seems to fall into the argument for "wait and see" others have favored above. Otherwise, in order to be NPOV the article would need to not only identify the "some" congressmen involved, but also reflect the counter-arguments as shown in the CBS News cite, pointing out the actual Constitutional authority involved, 60 years of precedent for unilateral presidential action, and the provisions of the 1973 War Powers Act. This seems a bit much at this point without finding out whether there will be any lasting effects of the criticism. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that Wikipedia, as an institution, is under a great deal of external scrutiny from not only the conservative press, but also the moderate mainstream press, for our treatment of this article. Allegations of a whitewash are becoming more and more frequent. Here we have a presidential decision that has exposed Obama to substantial criticism not only from the right, but from the left. And still there is an effort to exclude it, or at least delay its inclusion for as long as possible. Questions about Obama's authority to take this action without congressional approval are coming from such experts as a Yale law professor and other noteworthy legal scholars. It isn't going away, and it can't be dismissed as mindless mudslinging from the far right.

Questions along the lines of "is this Obama the person or Obama the president" are ridiculous. The two are inseparable. If he were not the president, he would merit an article about 1/3 this long — as a guy who served as a senator from Illinois for four years and quit. Being president is what makes Obama this notable. Accordingly, this enormously notable source of criticism must be included in this article. The only realistic and reasonable arguments are (A) how long the section should be, (B) whether to mention it in the article lede, and (C) the exact wording. Let's get it done. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Flinging around bullshit about editing under the watchful gaze of ideological critics, and labeling other editor's opinions "ridiculous" while codifying your own as "the only realistic and reasonable" one is just beyond the pale, IMO. If you cannot edit a controversial topic collegiality, then go spruce up the Easter bunny article in time for the holidays or something. Tarc (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This Libyan thing is not (yet) biographically relevant. There are other articles where the Libyan issue can be explored. There is always an overeagerness to add things to this (already long) article, which should be regarded as the very top level of a topic tree. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The US bombing campaign has entered its sixth day. We have launched hundreds of cruise missiles. We have had five nights of non-stop bombing runs. The targets of this bombing are now the Libyan military ground forces. The US congress is angry, including members of Obama's own party.

So lets consider the remaining argument against including this information in this article - namely that this is "not yet biographically relevant". This is a rather amazing statement when one considers the other "essential" information in this biographical page. Gems such as this:

• Obama is a well known supporter of the Chicago White Sox, and threw out the first pitch at the 2005 ALCS when he was still a senator. In 2009, he threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the all star game while wearing a White Sox jacket. He is also primarily a Chicago Bears fan in the NFL, but is known to also support the Pittsburgh Steelers, and openly rooted for them ahead of their victory in Super Bowl XLIII 12 days after Obama took office as President.

So let me get this straight; other editors are arguing that space in this article is so precious that we can't mention the military action Obama started in Libya, but we should spend a full paragraph worrying about his favorite sports teams? Seriously???

p.s. An editor who is serious about editing "a controversial topic collegiality[sic]" should refrain from accusing another editor of "flinging around bullshit". Thank you, Jgui (talk) 10:53 am, Today (UTC−4)

My goodness, the accusations claiming the "Whitewashing" of the article is a familiar screed. And totally a legit reason for inclusion. Eyes are everywhere, I guess. In any case, I will still side with the wait and see approach. Since there obviously is not agreement on the specifics, and the accusations from those who have included this into the article border on some kind of hysteria. Dave Dial (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hysteria"? Perhaps you should give the previous discussion a re-read. I see an attempt to include an extremely newsworthy and relevant topical incident in an article, with reasoned arguments supporting its inclusion. Try to respond to the arguments being made, rather than your mis-perceived paranoia of the editors involved. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a problem understanding what a biography is supposed to be:

A biography is a detailed description or account of someone's life. A biography is more than a list of impersonal facts (education, work, relationships, and death), it also portrays the subject's experience of those events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents the subject's story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experiences, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality.

It is important that a biography has a good blend of personal and professional aspects, so stuff about Obama being a White Sox fan is as biographically-relevant as whether or not he fulfilled an election promise. Every piece of information must be carefully weighed with these goals in mind. What it is not is a blow-by-blow account of current events, which is what this Libya thing is. The conflict in Libya may yet prove a significant moment in Obama's life story, but right now it plainly isn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if Obama had not campaigned so adamently against the war in Iraq and against war in general it probably would not be as big of a deal. But since he was an anti-war candidate this becomes are very integral part of his biography. To simply ignore the obvious doesn't do anyone service. Arzel (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

See, this is the type of intellectual dishonesty and complete disregard of reality that puts me on the side of exclusion of this type of 'gothcha' attempted inclusion. Anyone who has listened to the debates and read what Obama had to say knows that he has specifically stated he is not 'against war in general', but that he is opposed to 'dumb wars' orchestrated by 'armchair, weekend warriors' who attempt to cram their own "ideological agendas" down our throats. In fact, many believe that if the first President Bush had helped the rebels in 1991, enforcing a no-fly zone, and overthrow Saddam Hussein none of the arguments in 2002-2003 would be necessary. In any case, these types of arguments are useless when ideologues have their minds made up already. As your comments seem to prove. Dave Dial (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break. So I guess this is not a "dumb" war because Obama is doing it? Arzel (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not even a "war", as you persist in describing it. At best, it's a UN-backed police action designed to protect civilians by enforcing a no-fly zone. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Like the Vietnam Police Action that LBJ got heavily involved in? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually think it's close to being significant enough to include. Something along the lines of what is currently in the Presidency of Barack Obama, with Fat&Happy last edit. Although I would take issue with the portion about whether the President has the Constitutional authority to order the military to launch a UN backed no-fly zone enforcement, since almost every source makes it clear that he does have that authority, based on both the Constitution(CiC) and the 1973 War Powers Act. I think reasonable minds can understand the difference between ordering enforcement of a no-fly zone that more than likely will not last past the 90 day limit in the WPA, and launching strikes against a Country like, say North Korea or Iran. The later would most assuredly last more than 90 days and become an actual 'war'. Dave Dial (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that one was pretty much a quick patch for weight and NPOV, relying on existing cites and one I happened to stumble upon two minutes earlier. For my current take on the issue and the content, see the post above at 06:19 UTC. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I just read it and that is as good of an breakdown of facts here. I agree. Dave Dial (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue has gotten significant enough for inclusion under Foreign policy. I am drinking my morning coffee and reading the news; the issue is growing in prominence and isn't going away in the near future. Further, a sub section under Foreign policy could cover the whole MENA crisis as well. Libya is a big part but his foriegn policy in that region is significant and applies to other countries. I think we can all agree that this is a watershed moment in the MENA and Obama's foreign policies will most certainly grow in significance, if not already. The U.S. has many interests in this area.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck, NortyNort. I've been lurking on this page for over two years and participated actively on a limited basis, and the results have been very discouraging. Not only is anything that resembles criticism and controversy excluded from the article mainspace or cut down to a few words, but even whole issues, events and people (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Rod Blagojevich and Tony Rezko, for example) that might give rise to C&C are given the same treatment. The usual method is banish them to the presidency article, or some other article that isn't even linked here, such as William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright controversy, with editors who tried in good faith to introduce such material blocked or banned — and the result is something similar to the Taliban, with Obama taking the place of the Prophet Muhammad. Meanwhile, Wikibios about British and Canadian prime ministers and other American presidents are packed from top to bottom with C&C.

Today, the American military involvement in Libya enters its second week, every news network and daily newspaper has carried the war as the top story of the day for a week, and still the Barack Obama biography at Wikipedia remains serenely ignorant of these important and supremely notable events. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

For goodness sake. The police action in Libya is not a war, and it continues to have little biographical significance. This is entirely the wrong article to be trying to document a current news event, and there are several "child" articles that are more appropriate. Furthermore, your reference to faux controversies of the past almost certainly outs you as one of the WB74s of this world who battled to get that crap into this article at the time. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a civil war. Government forces and rebel forces are blazing away at each other with RPGs, artillery, rockets and automatic weapons. A civil war is a war. Calling it a "police action" sounds like you're actually saying, "Nothing to see here folks, time to move on." There are several editors here who agree that it has sufficient biographical significance at this point to include in the article mainspace, and if you can't see them above your latest post, it's because you just don't want to see them: WikiDao, Wikidemon, Arzel, Fat&Happy, NortyNort, Jgui and myself. There is clearly consensus for inclusion, at least seven editors. Your reference to outing suggests to me that you're trying to WP:OWN the article by any means necessary. Please stop. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Is there a reason why we're citing the mobile version of Salon.com[6] and not the regular version?[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed that reference along with the use of "scholars" believing in unconstitutionality. Both were opinion pieces, one didn't even mention Libya. So, then we were just left with "scholar" and I didn't think it was necessary.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Dumb question: is the issue the "constitutional" authority or his authority under the War Powers Resolution? The War Powers Resolution is probably unconstitutional, but neither side has really wanted to test it out in court. Ever since it was passed, Presidents have gone to congress to ask for authority, but they maintain they were doing so as a "courtesy", not that they were required to do so. Obama might be in violation of the War Powers Resolution, but not the constitution. --B (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it passes both, since he did inform Congress within 48 hours. If the mission exceeds 90 days, under the WPA, he would have get Congressional approval. The language of the Constitution, and the War Powers Act, may conflict, but I don't think it applies in this instance. Enforcing situations such as the Iraqi no-fly zone, Darfur and other United Nations security council resolutions differ from normal military actions that involve a commitment of ground forces and plans for occupying territories. Dave Dial (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're only focusing on the reporting responsibilities. Section 2 of the WPR says that the President is not allowed to send the troops to begin with unless he has a declaration or war, congressional approval, or there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." That's the part of it that he disobeyed. Section 4 (the reporting requirements) are a separate issue and he did obey that part. But that isn't my question. My question is whether the issue that these congresspeople are raising should be phrased as only one of constitutionality only, or as one of constitutionality and the WPR. --B (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I don't know where you are getting your interpretation from, but the sources I've seen definitely do not make that claim. Even reading the Bill and the summaries do not state that. I know some on the left make this claim, but I don't see many sources, politicians or scholars that would agree with it. The WPR does state the President contact the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate within 48 hours, but there are no restrictions based on "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces". Dave Dial (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have my old books around me now but I studied this in school as it pertained to Congressional investigations of CIA/Executive power in the 1970s. There was also controversy when the U.S. bombed (tried to assassinate) Qaddafi in 1986, as it pertained to EO 12333. The WPR sounds right and I know he worked with the National Security Council as well which is a requirement as well. I will do some more research but from what I studied, he is in the legal zone. The reform was designed to give the president time-flexibility when responding to national security threats without having an all-out war.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Abrazame's revert, I was trying to find major objections in this discussion to include the Obama/Congress Libya controversy. I pinged their talk page as well. More so, after Obama's speech, the complaints continue. I don't think any encyclopedic account of the Libya intervention should be absent of the controversy. I would've re-reverted it but that would push the boundaries of 1RR and I figured someone else may have some additional insight.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the constitutional question still has not risen to the level of biographical or long term significance, nor is it a primary source of public concern over Obama's handling of foreign affairs. Rather it looks like the latest articulation of a political constant, the inevitable opposition to anything a president does. There is one significant larger issue germane to his presidency, which may or may not be a biographical issue in the end, namely that his use of so called gunboat diplomacy harkens back to an earlier era of assertion of US power, and goes against the more recent patriotic invocations of war. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have left it in. In fact I have. I think it's borderline, and that we had agreed to have a small mention of it. But I can see that given the fact that most sources point out the 'complaints' do not have basis in fact, and this really doesn't have much significance in the bio of Obama, editors want to leave it out. At least for now. Dave Dial (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction: one editor wants to leave it out. Others think it's more appropriate to show the existence of criticism. The complaints do have basis in fact, Dave because even the War Powers Resolution (Section 2) requires an imminent threat or congressional approval before the president can use military force. If "most sources" are saying that, I'd like to see proof of that, Dave. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a strong opinion either way. The statement as written is true, and adding "in addition to cost" etc., puts it in context as being one among several other objections / criticisms. Whatever the WPA and constitutional separation of powers say, the question regarding inclusion here relates to the significance for Obama. I think we'll have more perspective in a few weeks or months, and be in a better position to decide whether the issue has legs as they say. If it spawns a congressional vote against the uprising, or an amendment to the war powers act, it would definitely be significant. In other scenarios the issue may soon be forgotten. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My edit showed something nobody arguing for that point bothered to mention, which was that the U.S. Senate unanimously passed bipartisan resolution calling for a no-fly zone, and urging Gaddafi to resign. Not only was that bipartisan Congressional approval, but the gist of it was that it should be done as soon as practicable, not after further Congressional branch rigamarole.

That fact is directly contradicted by the claims of editors (I note inaccurate claims by User:Phoenix and Winslow) who User:NortyNort is alleging have established consensus for this nonsense to appear in the bio. I will assume good faith that they were ignorant about it because sources they chose to read on it happened for some reason to omit this detail.

I venture to guess there has never in the history of our nation been any action that some few Congressmen haven't wanted to know more details about, or the cost, if not completely objected to, but that is not biographically relevant to any president simply on the face of it; otherwise, for every statement about every president there would be the final sentence "N, M and O from state X, Y and Z asked questions" or "expressed reservations". Which is what I meant by the second half of my edit summary, "horseflies go without saying". You don't culminate your review of a beach resort with complaints about sand in your shorts, unless you are making a joke.

The administration including 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and current (and Bush-era) Defense Secretary Robert Gates spelled out for the public discourse the caveat that establishing a no-fly zone would entail bombing military airstrips, planes, anti-aircraft missiles, communication facilities, etc., and would "look like war", for all who lately seem taken by surprise there would be, gasp, missiles, of this, that and the other sort. This is something any member of Congress would already know, given that we have enforced, and they have paid for, such zones elsewhere. And any member of Congress should be able to recognize the difference between decisive but limited military action and a declaration of war. Who doesn't have questions about what things will cost. But anybody that thinks there is an actual answer that isn't going to change based on facts on the ground is naïve. We don't note in Bush's biography that anyone questioned the cost of the Iraq war, or the difference between initial estimates and what was borne out, and in fact we don't even mention the total cost of that war there.

2008 Republican presidential nominee and current Armed Services ranking member John McCain of Arizona; ultraconservative current Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky; ultraconservative Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, current chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs and of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland, who straddles both parties. 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and current Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry of Massachusetts and current Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin from Michigan. All of these individuals and others like them were calling definitively for the no-fly zone. Not only was there a consensus in the voices of the current Congress but the consensus was that it should be done as soon as possible. Not one of these individuals recommended drawing out the issue with a debate in the House of Representatives, nor in these three weeks leading up to the action did the House start a debate, to my knowledge. And Sessions and current Republican Senator from South Carolina Lindsey Graham (a former JAG who was on the judiciary committee during the impeachment of Bill Clinton) said "Obama was within his authority as commander in chief to launch the military action currently under way". Libya's own people, including their deputy UN Ambassador called for the zone to protect the people fighting for their civil rights and freedoms. Most of Europe was clamoring for it. To the region, everyone from AIPAC to the Arab League called for the no-fly zone.

Bill Clinton called for a no-fly zone. Bill Richardson. Previous (and alleged future) Republican candidates including Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty all called for swift application of a no-fly zone (some of them "yesterday"), even though most of them were denying that or backpedaling on it later. Had they been president and done it "yesterday", they would have acted in advance of a UN mandate to do so, and that would have been more legitimately controversial insofar as it would have been going against the grain of international bodies, which would have vastly different implications for whose responsibility things are or would be if they become, in the Pottery Barn rule Iraq sense, "broken". None of these individuals questioned the cost.

To NortyNort, of course there would be valid controversy were Reagan's government to try to assassinate Gaddafi in 1986 (if that's what they tried and failed to do), because both Republican President Gerald Ford and Democratic President Jimmy Carter had established that this sort of assassination was beyond the scope of the U.S. government, something Reagan had agreed to be governed by with his own order mentioned above by NortyNort. But the only assassination attempt mentioned in Reagan's bio was his own. Obama's government is making no such departure from law or precedent in this regard, the way Reagan and Bush had, which was the lion's share of the controversy with both of those men, and why those actions are biographically relevant to them (despite that it does not appear there) while this is not (despite that it did appear here). If anything is biographically relevant in that regard it is that Obama not only followed national and international law here, but that he learned the lessons of both Bush (who jumped the gun on the UN resolution that called for WMD inspections that Hussein was allowing which were finding none) and Clinton (who deeply regretted not making a humanitarian intervention in Africa when similar threats were made there) — something noted by a CNN anchor a few days ago — rather than repeating either's mistake or breaking with or rewriting any precedent of law or executive order or ignoring a dictator bent on genocide.

The questions about the constitutionality of a president's authority to initiate military actions are general and have nothing to do with Obama biographically because what he did was called for by the unanimous bipartisan resolutions in the U.S. Senate and such a broad spectrum of the international community. I think Jimmy Carter, a former Naval Lieutenant, is the only president of the last 70 years who didn't exercise presidential authority to initiate a military offensive or all-out war, and originalists and Constitutionalists have raised this question every other one of those presidents for doing so. How many times is that? Nearly 120 times since 1973. Very few of those times was there a true "national emergency" and only in the case of the Afghanistan War was it truly precipitated by a major attack on the country resulting in a true, full-fledged war. The Articles of the Constitution split the responsibility, saying the Congress shall have power to declare war, while saying the president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. The criticism is not of this president for following precedent here, but of the government at large for allowing that precedent. I don't think this is an insignificant question in the broader historical picture, and I respect those in and out of government who raise this issue every time it comes up, because someday if not in recent memory, you could have a loose cannon really killing people unnecessarily, spending trillions, damaging our standing in the world. But unless and until Congress or the Supreme Court decides differently (and again, considering the historical precedent, even then), this is a broader issue, biographically irrelevant to Obama. Webb's statement in that ref was telling: if the Congress intended to maintain their Constitutional authority to declare war, and thought war may be called for in Afghanistan, or in Iraq, or in Libya (and those three are irresponsibly conflated, as there is no similarity between them in the run-ups to those wars), then they would not have passed resolutions authorizing or calling for actions. Perhaps they feared after the Capitol had been targeted in 9/11 there might be a situation where there could not be a quorum, or where an open session was not possible or put them in inordinate danger if it was literally on the eve of such a war. Perhaps they feared it would come up when they were out of session back in their districts, and precious time would be lost in the dozen or more hours it could take to get to D.C. and open session. But whatever their reasons, they have explicitly and implicitly conceded the authority to the president, and how many of those other 120 times since 1973 do we have this constitutionality thing rising to due biographical weight?

None of this is to say that any and every military action shoud be examined, discussed, understood — questions are important if the upshot is that people actually do some thinking about them, and make a real effort to answer those questions. But critics who raise invalid points and should know better (and those that don't know better) are not interested in being a part of that understanding, and so we shouldn't be presenting them as such at an encyclopedia in any context but the self-interested obfuscation it is much less a biography of someone else.

What User:NortyNort and User:Phoenix and Winslow have reverted into this article twice in the past day is not the consensus of editors at this page. What they are reverting is "questions" with a sentence split into two areas, one about constitutionality, and another about cost, structure and aftermath. The only discussion here is one of constitutionality, with editors basically split on the issue as to whether is is unconstitutional and nobody really getting to the gist of whether and why it is biographically relevant in this instance. I see no discussion or consensus here on cost, structure and aftermath. Of course random members of the House of Representatives have questions about just about anything; what makes their questions relevant to this section and not to other sections in this or other bios about the cost of various projects? It's absurd to say that this is biographically relevant here. It is on record that the U.S. military does not take orders from anybody but the U.S. military chain of command, if that's what is meant by structure, so those questions are hollow. As to aftermath, following the bungling of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I'd surely hope people are giving some thought to the aftermath, but as this is not a war but a no-fly zone, it's not really the same kind of aftermath we're talking about: there are no troops there, and I'm sure the question of our involvement will have everything to do with whether Gaddafi steps down or not, which is what world leaders have called for but which the UN resolution does not direct shall be enforced.

Apologies for the long post, I had presumed my edit and its sources would stand on their own and not require any elaboration in this already overlong thread. Abrazame (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I have a better understanding of your standpoint. My perspective for inclusion was not due to my opinions or the opinions on other editors regarding whether he is in the right or wrong. Simply, there isn't too many articles that I read about Libya and the U.S. that don't mention the controversy with Congress. That, I believe, gives it due weight for inclusion; not much but due weight. The text in the article shouldn't detail the controversy but mention it as a significant part of the story at this point.

I think the constitutionality has lesser basis in the complaints when compared to aftermath, cost and organization (I used "structure" to avoid plagairism, I am sure their is a better word). I understand the complaints in news articles because the U.S. President is commander-in-chief and when he has the military engaged, he is the leader and ultimately responsible. Structure or organization refers to who is leading the internvention, etc. U.S. troops under a NATO/UN command would obey orders from their commanders which is based on the overall commander who is sometimes not U.S. military. Regarding Regean's bio, this conflict is more protracted, multi-national and severe but I am a bit surprised it isn't in there.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A Senate resolution is not a congressional resolution. It avoided the House of Representatives. The controversy should be mentioned. Yes, we do mention in the George W. Bush biography that there was opposition to the invasion of Iraq. In fact, that biography mentions criticism and controversy several times. This one, not so much. And in the past two months, the MQ biography has become less and less neutral, and more and more critical of MQ. I wonder why? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Because MQ has acted up more and more, and was obviously seen doing so by a lot of people, so of course a "neutral" account of MQ's life would have to take MQ's activities into account. What has BHO done? Try to set up a no-fly zone. It's MQ and the people fighting him that are responsible for the vast majority of the mayhem, and I doubt that the American military had much to do in the conflict so far. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Broken/outdated/conflict of interests web link in "Notes" section (#3)

The link to an internet page stating: "(November 12, 2007). "Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian". Organizing for America (barackobama.com). Retrieved February 4, 2010." does not lead to the stated article, yet leads to a direct "get involved/donate now" page for his 2012 re-election campaign. This is a direct conflict of interests and does not support the "Neutral point of view" espoused by Wikipedia.

This link is the first bulleted point in the "Notes" section; #3. The 3rd "Note" is supposed to lead to information about Obama's religious affiliation, yet nothing on that topic appears. There is only the "get involved/donate now" page for his 2012 re-election campaign.

This is an obvious conflict of interest; no link should be provided that is a political promotion of a candidate for future office.Pdburk (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a link to the Factchecking page the Obama campaign used to debunk falsehoods that were being promoted against him, but evidently the campaign is gearing the website up for 2012. I changed the link to a Scribd cache of the webpage as it was. There were no nefarious attempts to direct users to Obama's 2012 election website. Dave Dial (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave--thanks for taking care of this. Even though the link you provided to fix this shows a page which is difficult--if not impossible--to read, it is much better than leading to a donation page. Pete Pdburk (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. As for the readability of the page, you just have to use the zooming tool. I couldn't find the page at archive.com, or in Google's cache. I wasn't gearing up for 2012, but was for bed. So I am fine if anyone wants to change it to a better link. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical visit and speech at Lincoln Memorial

Include it in article: [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.43.34 (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the story here: Probation? Penalty without a rationale?

Text inside a brown box on the DISCUSSION page states, "This article has been placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation for full information and to review the decision. Administrators: when sanctioning an editor for disruption to an article under probation, please be sure to record the action in the appropriate log. The log is linked here, under "decision and log" on the sanction's row in the table."

There haven't been as many problems in one WP paragraph, in years.

1) This text appears to refer to the Article page, not to the Discussion page.

2) It is located at the bottom of a list of templates but whether or not a page can or cannot be edited is paramount. It should be unobstructed.

3) The link at its start points to the top of page addressing sanctions instead of explaining "probation". Pointing to a penalty before rationale is addressed is akin to a government imposing martial law. ("Do as you are told; don't even attempt to understand 'why'")

4) Since WP has tools/rules for preventing change, it doesn't make sense to penalize an editor for doing what editors do.

Can someone post a one-sentence definition of what it means ot be on "probation"?

Kernel.package (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It simply means that discussions about editing this article has reached some pretty deplorable depths over the years, and that the leeway allowed is much shorter here than one would find elsewhere. The short version; you (the general you, not specifically you) are on a short leash here. Tarc (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, thanks. I was thinking just this based on "How to avoid being subject to remedies" on the related penalty page. Thanks for making it clear. Kernel.package (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sr.

The hatnote to Barack Obama Sr. seems unnecessary. Being the President's father, he already has a prominent link at the top of the 'early life and career' section. -161 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.54.63 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If it were a section hatnote later in the article, I might agree with you. But since the purpose of article hatnotes is primarily to let readers know immediately if they have reached the wrong article, without having to read further in, this one seems appropriate. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with F&H. Tvoz/talk 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree if Obama Sr. were anywhere as notable as Obama Jr. He is not. His notability comes entirely from his parentage to the current President, and few if any readers will be looking for the late Obama, such that it requires a highly prominent link. -161

Hatnotes frequently refer to very insignificant articles - the purpose is just to point readers in the right direction, not to make an implication that the other article is notable. Tvoz/talk 01:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

pictures

i have some perfect photos how can import them when its protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad taghi (talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You can put the links in this section as to where they are located (Commons or Wikipedia) and an editor can insert them if appropriate.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Barry Soetoro

Why does Barry Soetoro redirect here? Who the hell is Barry Soetoro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.230.243 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Lolo Soetoro is/was Obama's stepfather, and Obama took the surname while living in the Phillipines when he was a child. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia, not Phillipines. Corvus cornix_talk 20:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

obama also registered for college under the alias barry soetero. if i am not mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.9.94 (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

- I think you are mistaken. Unless of course you can provide proof. --EECEE (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama is an Arabic name

Like politicians such as Gary Locke who get a translation of their names to their original languages, the transliteration of Barack Hussein Obama to its original (and more accurate) form should be welcomed on the main page. TheWilliamson (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama Sr. spoke English, Swahili and possibly other local Kenyan languages; his mother was American. Where does Arabic come into it? Acroterion (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The name itself is clearly Arabic in origin. Most Wikipedia articles of proper nouns of a recent foreign origin have the respective transliterations. TheWilliamson (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to Ehud Barak. Besides which, the Gary Locke example is not apt. His parents gave him a name other than "Gary Locke" at birth. The original name is included, but his parents first actually used that other name. Was any Arabic (or non English) name actually used by Barack Obama's parents? If not, we should not put our own translation that was never used. It would constitute synthesized trivia and original research. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

<ec>Leaving aside "Hussein," which is more related to his father's faith than his ethnicity" "Barack" can be Jewish/Israeli (as Barak), Arabic (as Mubarak), or presumably Luo. "Obama" is a a Luo family name. There appears to be no substantial Arabic source, and I would disagree with any translation or transliteration in the absence of a source substantiating an Arabic provenance. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with any translation or transliteration in the absence of a source indicating it was ever actually his name. In the case of Gary Locke, he actually was given a different (and foreign language) name. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms in the Intro?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birth certificate

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

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

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

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

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

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

At what point does a conspiracy theory become notable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At what point does a conspiracy theory become notable? When Jon Kyl claims 90% of the people believe it.^{[ not intended to be a factual statement ]} ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Obama not graduating latin honors?

Apparently User:EECEE feels it's quite necessary to point out [[9]] that Obama did not graduate Latin honors from Columbia School of General Studies and cites the schools general honors page as reference to back up this WP:OR. The first question is why is this even remotely important? Subject does not claim to have graduated with honors and the article does not claim that he graduated with honors? What's the point for adding this information? Where are the reliable third party sources that makes this an issue to be included in the general biography ob Obama? Brothejr (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK click on the link. [10] A notable, reliable source mentioning his graduation without honors from Columbia:

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

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

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

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

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

Osama bin Laden is dead

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

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

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

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

Are we trying to bolster the election?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recentism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you don't perceive the killing of Bin Laden - an order given by the President after four national security meetings, and covered by tens of thousands of sources already[11] - as a major event of historical significance to the Presidency, perhaps you are not seeing things through the same lens. There is always a "current events" problem with quality and perspective, and a tendency for such sections to fill with minutiae and balloon out of proportion, but that's a different thing entirely than saying that the event is too insignificant to cover. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn't trying to justify any abuse directed your way, and you're an old hand around these parts. I was thinking of several recent IP contributions,[12] including the one that started this section.[13] This one[14] (to paraphrase, "I'm an Obama supporter but y'all a bunch of liberal tools") is very familiar, but I can't say if it's because the same editor is back to harangue us or if it's a turn of phrase that naturally occurs to people. Particularly after the hubbub from early 2009 I strongly think we should all give each other the benefit of the doubt and be polite, particularly to newbies acting strangely. But anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that any controversial information faces a lot of discussion before people get around to accepting it. That's as it should be for a stable article, but the problem here is that the world keeps turning faster than Wikipedia can update the article about it. The Libyan action is (was?) a current event so it's not surprising it took a while. Patience... - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fresh look at the article

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

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

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

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

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

Sceptre ^(talk) 16:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I repeat, Barack Obama is already running into considerable opposition, even from members of his own party and an independent senator who normally caucuses with his party, on the issue of raising the debt ceiling.[15][16] There is no WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing required, Scjessey. This wouldn't be happening if the democrats had won the midterm election and retained control of the House. The feud over the budget blankets the news in the same way that the war in Libya blanketed the news a few weeks ago. The feud over raising the debt ceiling has already started. There are abundant reliable sources to confirm these facts, Scjessey. And again you resist any mention of anything that might make this article a little less cheerful and overly optimistic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dead links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First African American

FAQ #2, please. We have an FAQ in the first place so we can stop having these very long and rehashed discussions. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How come the first sentance states Mr Obama is an African American? I always thought he was a Mullato? Point in case - I'm half Chinese and half African (yes a bit like Tiger Woods) and grew up in China, and would feel a bit odd if someone referred to me as an African American (I have nothing to do with Africa or America?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.8.95 (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Mulatto is more of a slur than an acceptable racial designation, first of all. Second, "African-American" can be considered more a social construct rather than a literal reference to place of birth/origin. In the U.S. it has simply become the term to use to refer to black people in general. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC) More precisely, it refers to black people who live in the USA. 84.194.235.204 (talk) Given the "-American" bit, I'd wager that that is a bit obvious. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC) You'd think that was obvious, but the original IP seemed to think that we would label him african american even though he's not american.LedRush (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Not surprising at all - I've just recently seen the term used to refer to black Africans outside the US, with a social-science-political-correctness shudder at the insensitive use of "black". I always value "correctness" above "political correctness", but this sentiment does not seem to be shared universally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Why does this particular reset button keep getting pushed? Is it on an automatic timer? ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Well, if we included that Obama was the first biracial president in US history (a pretty big f'in deal) in the ame sentence that states he's the first african american one, this may stop. Until then, we'll have to keep hitting snooze every two weeks.LedRush (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC) re "Why does this particular reset button keep getting pushed?" Why?? Because it deals with ambiguous and abstract racial concepts. NickCT (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Because for some people racial concepts are a big thing. It's these same people who don't understand the concept that a person can and will define themselves. These people cannot understand that a person of bi-racial decent may and can decide to choose once race to identify with over the other. The same thing with religion, cars, money, rocks, papers, scissors, or paper cuts? Brothejr (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC) While I understand your point that people self-identify and that Wikipedia should recognize this self-identification (when it is verifiable and in RSs, as this clearly is), that doesn't really address why Wikipedia wouldn't also report on other verifiable info in reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC) In situations like these, it is helpful to consider that it is better to use terminology employed by the preponderance of reliable sources. While it is true that some quality sources explore the bi-racial issue, it is also true that most sources (by an overwhelming margin equivalent of roughly two orders of magnitude) use the term "African-American". I would argue it is better to "hit snooze" on this issue from time to time, rather than adjust the article to cater to (or pander to) those who wish to use the less common terminology. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Hey LedRush, I think you raise a good point & one I've considered at some length. I think the two major policies addressing this issue are Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality and WP:BLPCAT. My sense is basically that, while "other verifiable info" might be important, we give great deference to self-identification on the hot button topics (i.e. ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality). In other words, if someone says they are African American and has reasonable grounds to do so, we simply take them at their word, unless there is overwhelming information in verifiable reliable sources to the contrary. Personally, I think someone should rework the policies cited above to more clearly call out an emphasis on self-identification. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Just to be clear, I never advocated (and clearly argued against) any idea of removing any idea the Obama is African American. I merely mentioned, in answering someone's question about why the issue keeps popping up, that a more complete description might be helpfull. Clearly, the vast majority of sources say that Obama is African American and the first African American president. I just don't think that precludes other information being clearly and affirmatively stated (rather than letting people figure it out from the parents/other text). Anyway, not a big issue and one I'm not going to fight for. Just an explanation...LedRush (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC) LedRush - I got your initial meaning LedRush, and I can see you're comments are in good faith. I just don't think the "other information" you're referring rises to the point of overriding "self-identification". NickCT (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the note. Again, just for clarification, I don't want to override the self-identification aspect at all. Any change would be an expansion (not removal) of the current language. Also, let's not forget, Obama also self-identifies as biracial...just not nearly as much as he self-identifies with being african american.LedRush (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC) That he is the first President who is (self / generally identified as) biracial is a very notable, undisputable fact. Although I could personally see it going either way, the long-term consensus among editors here is that this is simply not quite important enough to merit a mention here. The sources that have emerged since the consensus was reached don't seem to tip the balance, and in fact there is less and less public discussion about Obama's race. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 99.238.18.213 (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Last I remember Obama went on cnn and said he identifies himself as black /african american and stated that his mother was white. Sure there are lots of White Americans like George Bush who probably has mexican ancestry or Jefferson or Coolridge and Harding who have documented black ancestry, but none of them are called bi-racial. Heck people in wiki oppose listing jfk jr and jackie onassis as mixed race even though they have documented black muslim ancestry according to pbs. Why, because they look white or seemingly identify themselves as white. Race is a social construct, its not really objective. Why Obama would be listed as bi--racial doesn't make any more sense than listing every other black person on wiki as biracial because back in the slave days white men were raping all the black women, and white women were running away with black men and white men were having sex with indian women just look at mexico (had american indians been darker we'd probably have huge meztizo population) so everyone is biracial. How Barack Obama is any less black or any more biracial than say Colin Powel or Eric Holder makes no sense to me. Everyone is mixed in America. "Race is a social construct, its not really objective" - Agree "the long-term consensus among editors here is that this is simply not quite important enough to merit a mention here" - Agree NickCT (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Just read the article about Miami Vice star, Phillip Michael Thomas. There it talks about him being "mixed race" because he is German, Native America, African and Irish. Why does Obama have a different standard? Is Wikipedia afraid of a backlash if it tells the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.92 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC) This bio has long included the word "multiracial" and gone into an in-depth explanation of the contrast between his parents' racial identities. One more post feigning ignorance of that fact will be taken as vandalism and the thread hatted. Read the damn article before getting coy about standards and "the truth". Abrazame (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Another question would be what does the actor in question regularly refer himself as? If for example Phillip Micheal Thomas identifies himself as mixed race and is often called that by reliable sources it would have no bearing here since neither of those things is true for Obama and that would mean that there is no reason for this article to match that one. The reason being that we would have two completely different situations. Also if the opposite is true (ie Micheal Phillip Thomas as well as reliable sources regularly only calls him Black or German etc) it should be that article changed to reflect the more common identification to not this one using the less used one.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I think in the article we should say that he is the first mixed-race president, but is commonly recognized as the first African-American (or black) president. F1rocks 01:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs) Man people make this too complicated. Terms like 'white' and 'black' are used to describe race. 'African American' is used to describe ethnicity. He is racially mixed. He is ethnically African American.98.242.242.207 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Why can't we say that Obama is the first Biracial president with Black or African American ancestry to hold office of the President? Educatedlady (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC) If everyone is mixed in America then Obama should be classified as Mixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC) We can't since reliable sources use the term African American and not mixed. We cannot decide to overrule the vast properdenece of reliable sources based on our personal views. If at some point in the future historians decided to on mass not to use the term African American there may be a case but at this point our rules are clear and we need to use the term reliable sources almost always use and that is not mixed race.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Is his birth certificate where it says his mother is Caucasian and his father is African considered a reliable source? Otacon3D —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC). No because the question is not weather he is not technaclly mixed race (something no one has disputed) but weather or not that should prevent us from using the term Obama himself and the vast majority or reliable sources has used. The clear consensus has been and likely will continue to be is to use the term reliable sources has used and that Obama has self identified as and that is African Americian.--76.66.189.236 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC) It should say something to the effect "He is both the first African American and multiracial person to hold the office." For a couple reasons but mostly because it is both historical fact and better represents the guidelines stated in the five pillars of Wikipedia. President Obama's level of self identification is not relevant; the president is often faced with having to give up personal freedoms (self-identification is one of them, as well as jogging outdoors, using most forms of personal electronic communication etc.) in order to assume the office; he cannot over-rule the historical fact he is multiracial even if he identifies as African American. The institution of the Presidency is bigger than the man. Similarly the next multiracial president elected will not be the first multiracial president, neither will the next American American president. The great work of the editors on this page does also likely represents an opinion as you have omitted one part of Mr. Obama's ethnicity in preference for another. The opinion likely does not reflect the principles of the neutral point of view pillar. Redpanda66 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure I get all that, but allowing that we have two separate but related items that pass all the other tests for inclusion -- (1) he is the first African American US president, and (2) he is the first multiracial US president -- we don't necessarily have to present them on equal footing or in the same place. The number of sources that discuss his being African American vastly outweigh those that discuss his being multiracial, so in terms of reporting on the state of knowledge in the world Wikipedia too reflects this bias. One fact is apparently more important to people than the other. On the one hand, there's a strong argument in favor of presenting similar facts together even if one is more prominent than the other. If somebody has two sisters, one of whom is very famous and the other who is not, their bio article will generally list both sisters in the same place. On the other hand, we do try to capture the most noteworthy details, particularly in the lede. If we listed every fact of Obama's ancestry at once (he apparently has German, Scottish, Irish, and lots of other roots, and like everybody is a distant relative of everyone from Dick Cheney to European monarchs) we'd have too much information to be useful. I don't mean to belittle the fact that he's multiracial, that's clearly more important than his being related to Dick Cheney, I'm just pointing out that not everything carries equal weight. I see self-identification as important in two ways. First, if someone self-identifies as being in a group that's usually reported in the sources. We don't use the self-identification directly from his own statements. Instead, if a lot of sources say that someone self-identifies as being a particular race we consider that. Second, in the negative, if a person self-identifies as something other than what sources say we have a conflict. When sources contradict each other, we have to decide what to do, and often the answer is to omit the fact entirely. For WP:BLP and other reasons we tend to avoid describing someone in terms they themselves reject. Anyway, we don't omit that he is biracial. The article points out that his father was African and his mother white American. Arguably we could do more to mention that makes him biracial. I guess we have to see how the sources describe it. One the that is missing from the encyclopedia is a good article that describes race as it applies to Obama. I'm pretty sure we don't have that as a stand-alone article, and I haven't seen any other article with an extensive discussion of that, even though there are plenty of sources that cover it. I'm guessing it would be a hard article to write, that may be why nobody has touched it. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I would argue that the sentence isn't presenting a lineage like you would fill out in a census document, it is regarding how Mr. Obama's presidency is a first in terms of ethnicity and historical context, first being the predominant operator. You (Wikidemon & 76.66.189.236 at least) whom I presume are editors keep referring experts in this discussion section, yet you do not cite them in the article or in the discussion section; as much discussion this one sentence alone has generated I think it would be in your best interests to do so. I agree that self identification is relevant for just about everyone, heads of state being a glaring exception. Heads of state pass into a historical context in which virtually every detail is recorded, Mr. Obama is no different. The President doesn't get to self-identify, regardless of whether Mr. Obama likes it our not he is a role-model to both African Americans as well as Multiracial individuals. Redpanda66 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

African American

FAQ #2 answers all. Moving on. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How can he be categorised as the first African American president when his mother is white, doesn't that make him Mixed Raced?? See FAQ #2. That is a common question around here and the article describes his background but uses the common and widely accepted term "African American".--NortyNort (Holla) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC) That's a very good point. He is technically mixed race. However, black is the dominant gene and white is the recessive base making the offspring of the two a shade of black. That is how it's been viewed, and that's how many mix race people that I know identify themselves. A black person with a mix of something is common and almost expected.John Q12 (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Well, if you replace "social perception" for gene I think you've got it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC) What is "a shade of black" and how is different from "a shade of brown"? Not to mention that skin coloration is controlled by a whole range of genes... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Somewhere, Gregor Mendel is weeping at how people didn't learn that dominant-recessive type traits don't work by blending. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Most mixed-race people *I* know identify themselves as mixed-race - only in America is it the case that someone who is equally black and white is regarded as black simpliciter. The idea that such a person is somehow more black than white is daft - place Obama in a group of black Africans and he'll look just as distinctive as he will in a group of white Europeans. He just seems more black than white (a) because most black Americans are at least partly mixed-race, and (b) because he's from a white-majority country. However, "African American" surely simply means an American with African ancestry, which Obama obviously has irrespective of the shade of his skin. 129.67.85.162 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Woah thanks for all the replies! I don't think the article should say "first African-American president", because he isn't, he is Mixed Race, which makes him just as much white as black. Wikipedia is written in accordance with reliable sources, not what you personally wish or think. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Well, you can't get much more of a reliable source than looking at pictures of his parents lol Could someone delete or box this section? It's been talked about ad nauseum. B-Machine (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Erm, no. Clearly hasn't been because people have said about how that point hasn't been bought up.

Number of lead paragraphs

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

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

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

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

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

Osama bin Laden

From the main article: "Reaction to the announcement was positive across party lines, including from predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton,[232] and from many countries around the world.[233]"

One would thought that this is true (so positive reactions from everybody), but if you visit: Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden you read this: "His killing was condemned, however, by Venezuela, the Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip, the Muslim Brotherhood,[2] and the Taliban."

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

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

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

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

Mention of conspiracy theories in the article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A small suggested tweak:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There should be a brief section in the article on this titled "Citizenship conspiracies", which links to the main article. The views are obviously absurd, but are very notable, and it is a violation of WP:NPOV to not cover them here. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the section doesn't get too long, and gives a sentence or two to the conspiracy theories, and then a few sentences about why they are BS. The rest of the details can be covered in the main article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Birther hysteria does not have a significant or notable impact on Obama himself, to the point where it warrants a mention in his biography here. The only appreciable effect it has had is in the 2008 primaries and in his current presidency with the Trump brouhaha. If it is worth a mention anywhere it would be in those respective articles. Briefly. Not here. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

Please add a hatnote

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

"O'Bama" redirects here. For the song, see There's No One as Irish as Barack O'Bama.

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

Not done: I sincerely doubt that anyone who types "O'Bama" into the search bar meant to find the fairly obscure song with a much longer name. Hatnotes are useful when they help people who likely end up on a page by mistake, but that seems highly unlikely here. Instead, that simply seems to promote the song. If that goes anywhere, it would go at the Obama dab page, but I'm not even sure it belongs there. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

a native of Honolulu

this suggests that Obama is a Hawaiian native, why not just say he was born there? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It does say that. Read the first sentence of the "Early life and career" section.--JayJasper (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"his great-great-great grandfather was born in County Offaly"

Can someone please change this sentence to:

"One of his great great great grandfathers was born...".

There are SIXTEEN of them, after all.

Hopefully this won't enrage the battalions of O'Wikipedians too much, given it is a fact and that - out of 32 of his great great great grandparents - the sole Irish one is the only one who gets a mention (albeit totally inexplicably - but let's stick to battles possible of success, right?).

86.17.211.215 (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done — I, too, have my doubts about the importance of this trivia-stuff, but ah well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ}

Edit request from Oolaalaa, 28 May 2011

See FAQ near the top of the page regarding heritage discussion and consensus. Phearson (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would suggest changing his ethnic heritage descriptor in the first sentence from African American to African White American or better still African Anglo-Saxon American. He is of mixed race heritage, with his mother's ethnic heritage being Anglo-Saxon. To miss out the latter ethnic origin from the article is inaccurate and inappropriate considering what this President stands for in terms of racial harmony. Oolaalaa (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC) No. Please see "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" near the top of this page. Click on it to reveal the list of questions. Click the "show" link next to Q2. -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wales

I suggest removing-at least for the time being-that President Obama's mother is of partially Welsh descent. Unlike the references used for her German and Irish roots, Walesonline.co.uk is postulating that two of her great-great-great-great-great grandparents may have been Welsh, rather than stating it as fact. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I ammended it to "possibly", pending feedback here. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that including the fact that there's a possibility that 2 of the President's mother's 128 great-great-great-great-great grandparents may have been Welsh seems to border on the ludicrous. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Transparency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Socialist" is an epithet hurled freely by some agitators on the right. O'Donnell has referred to himself as one. The political persuasion of the source shouldn't affect how we use it, because if the source is playing politics it is not reliable and we should not use it. This isn't a rugby scrimmage of pro versus anti-Obama forces, nor is it a place to rank presidents or give them a score. Simply, Obama made a minor to middling political issue and promise out of transparency which, should he follow through, would be a significant change in American governance and would likely generate enough sources to be worth including here. That hasn't happened, either the transparency some were hoping for or the flood of sources yea or nay, and unless that happens the issue just isn't weighty enough for this article. My concern over the goal and tenor of this conversation comes from this edit.[17] It's a little confusing and perhaps I read the syntax wrong but the original posting seems to be rhetorically arguing "are you interested to learn why 38 of 204 waivers recently went to fru-fru and chi-chi vegan sushi bars in Pelosi's district? Why won't HHS release this data? what is so classified about health care?" which is not only veering in the unproductive direction of arguing the subject rather than improving the article (per WP:TALK), but is also repeating some ignorant name-calling that Fox News commentators have been promoting. That would not be a useful direction at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If all you can do is make deliberately inflammatory comments like that, Arzel, perhaps you should excuse yourself from editing Wikipedia. This is a serious project for serious people. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that neither Arzel for Darkstar1st are at all interested in covering the topic of transparency in government EXCEPT as it relates to Obama - they didn't even acknowledge, let alone discuss, my proposal. That tells me all I need to know about their supposed 'dedication' to the mission of Wikipedia as a respected encyclopedia. Flatterworld (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

i am, Obama actually received an award for his transparency, the sunshine award. we could add that somewhere if you want. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, do you actually enjoy purposely twisting what I say? Why is that? Because I'm certainly not happy with people like you who are so desperately trying to make a laughingstock out of Wikipedia. Flatterworld (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

no i don't, but even if i did, i didn't twist your words. you suggest i am not interested, i am. *lets take this to my or your talk page, we are way off topic here. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not object to the inclusion, if the proposal otherwise has consensus, of a single neutrally and encyclopedically worded sentence cited to one or more nonpartisan sources (not two opposing partisan sources) that as of mid-2011 Obama's administration had taken steps to implement transparency programs but that those programs focused on putting existing information online rather than disclosing information previously unavailable, a limitation that disappointed some who were waiting for the latter. However, I do not favor the inclusion as I feel it is of undue weight and premature. I certainly don't think it's appropriate to use a "point counterpoint" style of dueling partisans and pundits, or a broken versus kept promises scoreboard in a biographical article. At this point consensus appears unlikely to develop and discussion. I've left a caution on one editor's talk page,[18] and don't see much point going further given the repetitive and unhelpful nature of discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

jftr, see Glass Half Full and the earlier Sunshine and Shadows from the National Security Archive. Flatterworld (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)