Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barack Obama/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tasks for 3 months, set simple binary goals?

Whats everyone think of my tasks and goals that I set for now? The goals just seemed to make sense. The point is to make everything FA class, and GA is a good starting point for that... Good Topic would come on it's own from that, and then eventually Featured Topic someday.

The tasks though... hows that format? No assigned jobs, work on what you want, call it out on this section, and we can all team up to help. Is this a good way to do it? rootology (C)(T) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I setup the "todo" function on this page...to lead people to a) the fact that it exists and b) to maybe use it. I find it handy. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I also setup auto-archiving...it will be needed later... Set to 30 days, but might go longer since this is a project page... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Project tag

I've now tagged all the biographies. I didn't assess them unless they were featured or good, but a bot will come along and do it eventually. The tag that we use doesn't have a field for importance, but that could probably be dictated in the article list. Grsz11 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A first for WikiProjects?

Is this the first WikiProject dedicated to an individual? GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare. Grsz11 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been a part of Wikipedia for over 3yrs & yet I'm still learning new things, cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Not an even comparison, but hey, you asked. Grsz11 21:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What?!

Why is this a WikiProject? You don't see Wikiproject George W. Bush, Wikiproject Bill Clinton, or Wikiproject Ronald Reagan -- not even Wikiproject Abraham Lincoln or Wikiproject George Washington! I am willing to bet that there are just as many articles relating to Bush, Reagan, and Clinton as there are relating to Obama. Shakespeare is a legandary playwright, so I can see that... but Obama?! Happyme22 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There are already more articles than a lot of other projects. If Wikipedia had been as big as it is now in 2001, I guarantee there would be a Bush project. Grsz11 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
There's also no restriction on Wikiprojects that I know of with a really specific focus. Right now, so far, ours is to make as many of these articles GA or FA as possible. It benefits Wikipedia in every way, and makes our job here, which is to create content, easier, by getting interested people together. :) rootology (C)(T) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't you guys make this into a work group? Wikiproject Christianity, say, has a Jesus workgroup. This really looks like a bit much. Hekerui (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It can always turn over later, but see my post below. We're not the smallest/most obscure WikiProject by far. rootology (C)(T) 23:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Color me a bit skeptical too. Most of the articles listed here are BLPs of people who are only just now joining the 'world of Obama'. Thus, those BLPs will be largely material that has nothing to do with Obama. As for getting lots of GA's, I hope you're aware that the GA backlog is bad and that articles currently spend weeks and weeks on the GA queues before they get any review. Also, note that some of the articles you list are already GA, such as Joe Biden and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just because we only just started this page, and have been just populating the article list and getting things in some order. rootology (C)(T) 23:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As for whether it's a worthy topic for a WikiProject, we have the following WikiProjects, so I don't think we're too far off in scope here:

And that goes from some mainstream topics (Lego) to some really, really obscure ones (Catullus, Machinima, which most people have never heard of). Our count is just going to grow, as there will be a constant stream of new content related to this administration for the next four years... rootology (C)(T) 23:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This project was NOT created properly. It should have been requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals.

But, I am torn. I sort of like the idea of a project focused around the current president, but when it might extend to every country's current leader... not so much. See Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents; at the very most, this should be a SUBTEAM under that project. If there is dispute, but the creators; then it should be taken to Wikipedia:WikiProject.
I expect this project to die in a couple days, but I will help create the sub-team...so the template look right. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Time will tell, hopefully it lasts. Groups of editors organizing to enhance articles as a project have to be approved by some group...? rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion and page moves

Should we have a section listing the current articles for deletion and page moves? I took this idea from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. I don't know if this would help this project. --J.Mundo (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I added a section for Discussions where you can put a link to the article and AfD or talk page, or wherever the discussion is. Grsz11 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama/articles

This page will be rather difficult to keep maintained. Perhaps instead we could direct users to search this page that will show each page that the project template has been placed on. Grsz11 04:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Teamwork with other WikiProjects

Previously I proposed an Obama task force (see User:Mike Serfas/Obama), which is currently in discussion on the talk pages of WP:WikiProject U.S. Presidents, WP:WikiProject Politics, and WP:WikiProject United States Government. I felt that any article tagged by the Obama task force would automatically fall under the purview of those other projects, except possibly the third, which is tagged "inactive" anyway. Given the current situation, I should ask whether people are still interested in this cross-indexing, so that for example a single person could tag and rate an article for this project and the three listed above. Mike Serfas (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be useful. I also think there's a bot out there that will tag an unassessed article that has been assessed by another project, like if Politics assessed a B-class, it would automatically assess for the other projects, even if the user did not. Grsz11 05:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Limits on article probation

Those who edited Obama-related articles before the election know how contentious things became - yet even so, it is important to draw a clear, small boundary to the article probation. We shouldn't be running around throwing up article probation tags like it was a WikiProject, or have new articles on probation unknown to their authors. We don't want to create a sense that Wikipedia regards Obama, or U.S. politics, or politics in general, as something specially off-limits. If it really makes sense to put vast numbers of articles on probation, we should do it cleanly and without confusion by placing all of Wikipedia under these same rules. Mike Serfas (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Barack Obama article probation is defined as "broadly construed", meaning it covers any article that is more than tangentially-related to Barack Obama. It should be taken as a topic probation, rather than for specific articles. This is because of vandalism and content warring, and it is rightly applied until administrators form a consensus to end or limit the probation. Any article that suffers from edit-warring or vandalism because of its association with Barack Obama automatically falls under the auspices of the probation. It may not be an ideal situation, but it has worked well thus far. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Federal Marriage Amendment

I have removed the WP:OBAMA banner from Federal Marriage Amendment. I think that Obama's single vote on the issue makes it far too tertiary to belong under this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I added the tags to this and a few other issues is that they are referenced from the Obama agenda that was posted to barackobama.org, change.gov, and whitehouse.gov. See wikisource:The Change.gov Agenda to search for these references more easily. Mike Serfas (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
So are AIDS and Nuclear terrorism. Should those be under this project? bd2412 T 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
So far Barack Obama has had nothing to do with the Defense of Marriage Act. He made more than 500 campaign promises, but he will not perform a possible review of this federal law, Congress will. So I will delete the project from it. Hekerui (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
So far I only linked references to specific political objectives, rather than objects or scientific terms; as such AIDS prevention might have fallen under my criteria but not AIDS itself. However I didn't make that link because I didn't find a specific AIDS prevention program mentioned in the agenda. In the same way I did not link nuclear terrorism because it is not itself a political agenda item, but I did link Proliferation Security Initiative.
However, some potential project participants at User:J JMesserly/WikiProject Obama administration were primarily interested in technological concepts, and if they are to be brought into this project, some terms such as Smart Grid and Plug-in hybrid should also be added. I didn't do that yet because I hadn't decided where to draw the line on this sort of concept. Perhaps I'll rely on some third-party source to list top technologies of the Obama adminstration.
I understand that some here place a strong emphasis on biographies, even of persons tenuously related to Obama (Tony Rezko?), but I see the legislative, executive, military, and public relations actions of the administration as the most relevant. And if Obama has made 500 campaign promises about 500 different things ... 500 articles is a small number to add for most WikiProjects. For example, WP:MCB has assessed 17,817 of 18,708 tagged articles. Mike Serfas (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Was this project ever formally discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No, and why? From WP:COUNCIL/P: "This page can be used to gauge support for potential WikiProjects" (emphasize added). And also: "If your project gains support from 5-10 active Wikipedians, it could probably benefit from the organisation boost of having a proper page." There are already more than 5 interested users, meaning had it been "Proposed" it would probably pass. Count my opinion as WP:IAR for the sake of improving content, that is what we are here for, no? Grsz11 15:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why are you asking? Are you implying the project should be deleted because it hasn't been "formally discussed", and until it has been? Has any harm resulted because the project was started "out of process"? What's the point here? 78.34.138.80 (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rookie question

I just created the page Obama: From Promise to Power. How do I include it among the articles in the scope of this project? I added some Obama categories to it and added {{WikiProject Barack Obama}} to the talk page. Will that do it, or is there I need to do? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Source of information - whorunsgov.com

whorunsgov.com is a project of the Washington Post. The biographies at that website have extensive (inline!) footnotes. Unfortunately the text of the articles is (standard) copyrighted, not GFDL or CC, so it can't be copied directly, but the articles definitely can be used to identify missing information and to locate sources. Also, I suggest, adding external links in Wikipedia articles to the corresponding articles at whorunsgov.com would be a good thing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource extension

I've created an extension of this project at s:Wikisource:WikiProject Barack Obama, to allow us a place to keep track of source materials. Categories don't cross between Wikipedia and Wikisource, but it is easy to Wikilink from one to the other. I'd encourage anyone interested to use the Special:MergeAccount process to extend their logins to Wikisource, and sign up for the project there.

I've noticed some duplication of effort between Wikipedia and Wikisource, especially regarding executive orders: compare List of United States federal executive orders and s:Author:Barack Obama/Executive orders, for example. Because the U.S. government produces so much writing in the public domain, I think that this WikiProject will have more reason to use Wikisource than most others. Mike Serfas (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack who?

don't worry of course I know who Barack is its just that this article never really mentions who Barack is (a.k.a the 44th president of the united states) please someone change it! --Eigguhs (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section is aburd

The entire section all right-wing propaganda, and does not belong and a purportedly neutral article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.83.16 (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

All controversies, whether "right-wing propaganda" or not, still relate to the topic. I respectfully disagree with your assessment. sohmc (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment issues

I have a few comments after assessing some of the articles for this project.

For importance, the scheme I'm using is as follows:

The first level of bullet-points is Top, the second High, the third Mid, and any less important category is Low.

Additionally, I should ask whether we should set any particular standards for A-level articles. Some other WikiProjects develop their own criteria for this level. It is important we make such a decision fairly soon, because fortunately participants are developing quite a few Good Articles, and they need to be promoted to A-class before they can move on to final featured status. Mike Serfas (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama (disambiguation)

Barack Obama (disambiguation) has been prodded for deletion . 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive1

Be advised that there is a WP:FAC discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive2‎

Why haven't we gotten any feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive2‎ except a stale oppose for an image that was removed last week.?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 14:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:51, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Scope

Do Karen Mills and Gil Kerlikowske really have anything to do with Obama apart from being nominated by him? Hekerui (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing in regards to Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (no mention of Obama) Peace Corps (only mention of Obama is in the infobox), Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (no mention), AmeriCorps (no mention), Honolulu (one mention), Jakarta (no mention), Stop-loss policy (no mention), Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (no mention), Earned income tax credit (no mention), Sanjay Gupta (he's no longer a candidate for Surgeon General), Head Start (no mention), Medicare Part D (no mention), and Proliferation Security Initiative (no mention). (Note: I didn't go through the entire list, just the first page.) APK straight up now tell me 06:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
cough APK straight up now tell me 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Since no one has replied, I assume there will be no issue if I remove the project tag from some of these unrelated articles. APK straight up now tell me 07:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I say, go ahead! Hekerui (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton GAR

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussions have been moved to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hillary Rodham Clinton/3.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles potentially in the project

I am not sure exactly what articles belong in the project. Someone associated with the project may want to tag Burnham Park (Chicago), Kenwood, Chicago, and Kenwood District with the project's talk page tags.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The West Wing presidential election, 2006

FYI, The West Wing presidential election, 2006 has been nominated for deletion. As this fictional election has been mentioned in reference to the election of Obama many times in the press, I thought I'd let you know. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ann Dunham GAC

Ann Dunham has been nominated as a good article. Reviewers have made comments and raised concerns here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama Administration personnel

Hello there, WikiProject Barack Obama people! Quick question - can the articles Jesse Lee (politician) and Macon Phillips be added to the template {{Obama Administration personnel}} ? Thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver FAC

Hey all. I've nominated 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver for featured article. I'd encourage any feedback at that page. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Annnnd now it's up for AFD. lol. Any comments there would also be welcome. — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Never mind, it ended with a Speedy keep. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Anybody interested in helping with the review? There have been only a few comments so far, and I'd hate to see if fail simply because of lack of reviewers... — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging of speeches?

This point came up during the RFC on promoting WP:EVENT, which was closed as successful and promoted to notability guideline. Under this guideline, events must have coverage with both depth and sufficient duration. It would appear that several of Obama's speeches would not qualify for separate articles, and therefore I am recommending that they be merged into Speeches of Barack Obama. Thoughts? The WordsmithCommunicate 20:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ron Bloom

I don't know if the Obama's Car Czar can be added to this project, but if so, please add it. It could use some expansion. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed 2009 Barack Obama visit to China merger

Hey all. I wanted to direct your attention to this proposed merger discussion. A user (not myself) has proposed it be merged with Sino-American relations. I also wanted to throw an inquiry out there: in my comments at that merger discussion, I suggested not merging it with Sino-American relations, but to instead merge/change the China visit into a broader article called something like Sino-American relations under Barack Obama...if there is enough material out there to warrant such a page. I would expect there is, but I'm not an expert in this particular category. Do you guys think there is enough to warrant such a page? — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

War on Terrorism vs Overseas Contingency Operation

Hey all. I'm asking users from this WikiProject and other WikiProjects to weigh in at the talk page for a question about the War on Terrorism page: specifically at this section. Currently, the page says the war ran from "October 7, 2001 - January 20, 2009", where it ends because the Obama administration has discontinued use of the term in favor of the "Overseas Contingency Operation". However, Overseas Contingency Operation currently redirects back to War on Terrorism. The way I see it, we need to either a) create a new Overseas Contingency Operation page that encompasses everything that has gone on since 1/20/09 with the Obama administration and the war on terror, or b) Incorporate toe OCO stuff into the existing War on Terrorism page, in which case the date would be "October 7, 2001 - present". I personally can see merit to both ideas, but I'm not the expert, so I'm seeking input from people more qualified than me to see if we can develop a consensus. I'm hoping we can War on Terrorism page: keep the discussion here so the discussion doesn't split into multiple discussions on multiple WikiProject talk pages. Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PPR

Hello, I have done some work on Portal:Barack Obama and have put it up for portal peer review. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone commented here.  fetchcomms☛ 02:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Barack Obama at FPOC

Portal:Barack Obama is at FPOC. Please add input here. Thank you,  fetchcomms☛ 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy: where are they?

I must have somehow missed the numerous criticism and controversy entries but cannot seem to find a single one throughout the entirety of the Obama articles, or even a single entry within other sections, it is almost as though the man is projected as some sort of latter day saint. Please would someone paste me these links? Twobells (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss issues (real or not) about certain articles. That's what the article talk pages are for. Grsz11 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

New article - Obama effect

I just created Obama effect. Any help you could give would be appreciated. Remember (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, may be able to get this up to DYK status if anyone wants to try. Remember (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Violations of NPOV

I'm not interested in starting a controversy, but I see many violations of the WP:NPOV. Even a few members of your project portray this on their descriptions. One states that he will do all he can to prevent "right-winged" opinions or facts. This, and what I see a lot in the discussion pages creates a "left-wing" bias in the articles. The amount of "left-winged" garbage out weighs the "right-winged" garbage off-setting the scales and making a bias. More facts, and logical thinking (READ: not original research) needs to take place.Halofanatic333 (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have found this true in the past, that no matter how notable a criticism of Obama, or how well-sourced it may be, that the editors on the main page will fight it tooth and nail, bringing in other liberal editors from elsewhere on Wikipedia and then claiming 'consensus' regardless of past editors who provided opposite consensus who just aren't present at the time. I would think consensus alone should not be enough to block mention of topics that are notable and reliably sourced. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
For example, Wikipedia mentions notable criticisms of Barack Obama, but none are mentioned on the main page because of how strongly the editors there fight it. Some examples:
-Voting record on live birth abortion: Barack_Obama_social_policy, United States Senate election in_Illinois, 2004, Nat Hentoff, James Dobson, David Freddoso, Jill Stanek, Gianna Jessen, Alan Keyes, The Committee for Truth in Politics
-Citizenship: Natural born citizen of the United States, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Andy Martin (American politician), Alan Keyes, Political positions of Sarah Palin, Ken Cuccinelli, Ted Poe, Wiley Drake
-Knocked off all candidates in 1st election by disqualifying petition signatures on technicalities. Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama, Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, Alice Palmer (politician)
-Asked Emil Jones, head of Illinois Senate, to make him a U.S. Senator, following which he was appointed head of high-profile pieces of legislation worked on by other Illinois Senators. Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, Emil Jones
Supposedly, though worthy of mention elsewhere on Wikipedia, they are somehow not valid on the page of the person they most concern. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Just check the 70 or so pages of archives for the Barack Obama page's discussion. This has been brought up dozens, and possibly over 100 times now. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Awards of Barack Obama

There should be a list, everything from Nobel Prize to honorary degrees. I would help out if somebody else would go for it with me. --Iankap99 (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect-class?

Would it be acceptable if I created the Redirect-class to be included in Category:Barack Obama articles by quality? Other WikiProjects that use this class can be seen at Category:Redirect-Class articles. __meco (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Barack Obama articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

New controversies article created with awkward title

A new article was just created titled Broken promises, hypocrisies, and other controversies regarding the presidency of Barack Obama. This was in such full form on creation that it feels like a copy-and-paste from another article or recreation of a deleted article. It's a new account that created the article. Can somebody familiar with the project take a look at this? Thanks. —C.Fred (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard discussion regarding Penny Pritzker article(s)

FYI, see:

Penny Pritzker was an important backer of the Obama campaign. The edits of concern involve subtle issues and it would be good to get additional eyes on the subject.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Campaign Rhetoric of Barack Obama

Just dropping a note to draw your attention to a new article Campaign Rhetoric of Barack Obama created today. Regards, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested policy change to the tagging of non article items

I have submitted a proposal at the Village pump regarding tagging non article items in Wikipedia. Please take a moment and let me know what you think. --Kumioko (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial for deletion

The article Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinions needed at Barack Obama, Sr.

A question has arisen at Barack Obama, Sr. about whether we should be consistent across the set of Obama articles regarding use of American English spelling, specifically for that article and Family of Barack Obama which covers people from the US, Kenya, Indonesia, Canada, and others - and uses American spelling because the common theme is Barack Obama. Would appreciate some input. See Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.#British or American English spelling?. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 07:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Please comment at Talk:Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges#Requested_move on moving Rod Blagojevich corruption charges → United States v. Blagojevich.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Image:Lolo Soetoro Ann Dunham Maya Soetoro-Ng Barack Obama.jpg

File:Lolo Soetoro Ann Dunham Maya Soetoro-Ng Barack Obama.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

New article - book - It Gets Better by Dan Savage

Created, new article. :) Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page.

  • Note: President Obama is one of the contributors to the book.

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Barack actually the SECOND partially African American president?

His wikipedia page says he was the first.

  • His Wikipedia page says he was the first African-American president, based on reliable sources. Please read the FAQ on that. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

New page - created - Dan Savage bibliography

Newly created page, Dan Savage bibliography. Feedback and ideas for additional information and secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

List Peer Review - Dan Savage bibliography

This page is undergoing a List Peer Review, feel free to provide feedback, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

As an FYI this document from the Obama administration is there to outline additional transparency: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41361.pdf

And is an archive of the document http://www.webcitation.org/5zlOzI8Wx WhisperToMe (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 5

WP:CHICAGO will collaboratively at Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 5 edit in celebration of Wikipedia Loves Libraries on the topic of Barack Obama: The Chicago Years on October 29, 2011 from 12–5PM.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Abraham Lincoln proposal

Hello editors interested in Abraham Lincoln. I just created a proposal for a new WikiProject with a focus on Lincoln, similar to this WikiProject. Please feel free to comment on my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Abraham Lincoln‎. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Leon Panetta as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

Greetings, as a WikiProject that relates to this article, this notice was sent to let you know that the article, Leon Panetta, has been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive9. Lihaas (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone please note that the above review was closed on June 17 after a very short discussion; the decision was to keep the article as featured. — Richwales 15:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories

I have semi-protected Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories for a month, after an IP editor using multiple dynamic addresses repeatedly inserted a problematic and inadequately sourced paragraph about Obama's connections with the United Church of Christ. The editor was cautioned several times on talk pages for his IP addresses, as well as in detailed edit summaries when his material was reverted, but evidently he simply does not care. Even after the material in question was cleaned up, supplied with proper sources, and incorporated near the start of the article, the IP editor again reinserted his problem text in its original form (in addition to, not instead of, the cleaned-up version). In my view, this last action clearly crossed the line from a content dispute to plain vandalism, so I semi'ed the article in order to protect it from further damage. — Richwales 14:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Article idea

Perhaps I need to look harder, however on Wikipedia I have not found any articles that mention, or specifically about the Roanoke, Virginia campaign event where President Obama stated "You didn't build that". The speech has received a HUGE amount of coverage, receiving 12 million different mentions, many of which would be considered significant coverage and would warrant an independent article. I understand the controversial issues surrounding creating such an article, and also understand that such an article would have to be written from a NPOV, however I am of the opinion that such an article should be created.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't advocate creating an articles for every speech but I do agree that this one seems to meet the criteria. Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest creating such an article after the election, if it turns out that this particular talking point demonstrably affects its course. We're not a news site and we have no deadline, so there's no need to create an article right now. And if you don't have any interest in creating such an article after the election, well, that sort of speaks for itself in terms of its lasting notability. MastCell Talk 21:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If you spend time on country roads in the USA, you will encounter many pickup trucks with dogs riding on the back, as well as other vehicles with dogs hanging their heads out the windows, feeling the breeze. Many people don't find that unusual, including myself. However, the article linked here exists. And why does it exist? Because many Americans (perhaps partially motivated by political animus) consider it notable, and it is true and verifiable. Nobody felt it important to wait until after the election to create the Mitt Romney dog article. I suggest that Obama's "you didn't build that" comment is no less notable, even if it is embarrassing to Obama supporters. If it meets all the criteria for an article, then waiting until after the election is an inappropriate, POV motivated decision. Wookian (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
So your argument is that we should write this article because "other crap exists"? Personally, I think it's ridiculous that we have an article on the "Mitt Romney dog incident". It makes us as Wikipedians look like clowns. If you send that article to AfD, I'll !vote to delete it in a heartbeat. But the answer to a crappy article isn't to write another crappy article, right? MastCell Talk 18:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Haha, I won't disagree with your word choice or logic here. But maybe this issue can be put to rest for the original asker "RightCowLeftCoast", since I found an article that references this notable gaffe: Barack_Obama_2012_presidential_campaign. In my opinion, a mention there is appropriate and contextual without inflating it to separate article status. Wookian (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Mitt Romney's dog wasn't sticking its head out the window, it was strapped on top of the car. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Not relevant to debate this here. If somebody starts a RfD for that nonsensical article, I'll join MastCell in voting for deletion. Sadly, I predict that the deletion attempt would fail. Cheers. Wookian (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The whole dog article, which you brought up, isn't relevant to this present debate. I don't think the speech is important enough to merit an article, not that I necessarily think the dog incident deserves one either. Obama gave a speech (one of many he's given) in which he said that business owners didn't build the infrastructure they rely on, to which Romney responded by trying to make an issue of it. I am not aware of any evidence that this has become an issue in the campaign, aside from Romney's attempts to make it one. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"I am not aware of any evidence that this has become an issue in the campaign" Clearly you do not read conservative media. Peggy Noonan at the WSJ is one person who piled on, but practically everybody on the conservative side of the fence in the media has excoriated the president for that gaffe. And the more natural reading of Obama's statement was that "you didn't build [your business]". Anyway, I think the mention in the existing article as cited above is appropriate, and I don't see a need for a dedicated article for this incident. Wookian (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the speech as mentioned in the article, however it is heavily biased in the way that it is presented as being written in a manor that is pro-BHO, and anti-MR and thus not adhering to NPOV. There is no mention of the wide coverage the speech received in right leaning and main stream media, and reaction to the speech. The "fact checking" sites are not necessarily neutral, but that is not really a focus of this present discussion. If content is drawn from the millions of reliable sources as was done with the Sandra Fluke Controversy than a size-able article could be created.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not "pro-BHO". It is presented neutrally. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The Obama campaign and some (perhaps) liberal-leaning fact checkers are in the position of arguing that he didn't mean one phrase exactly in the way he said it, i.e. that he made a mild misstatement. To emphasize such a characterization while effectively shutting out the alternative sounds pro-BHO to me. It may be allowing the Obama campaign to retroactively exercise damage control, which is exactly what would be expected by an appropriately cynical spectator. The alternative is that President Obama accidentally let slip an anti-capitalist statement that would actually be very mild compared to his ideological past. Please don't shoot me. I'm just sayin' there are two legitimate ways to interpret this gaffe. Wookian (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. It wasn't really a "gaffe" at all. It only sounded odd when taken out of context. It compares, for example, to when Romney said he would end Planned Parenthood but in context it was clear he meant ending funding, rather than the organization itself. A far worse example of a gaffe would be this:
“Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.
Some people in the front of the audience shouted, “No, they’re not!”
“Of course they are,” Romney said.
-- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Language is ambiguous. When I say "gaffe" I don't mean to imply a particular interpretation of Obama's remarks. As long as it causes embarrassment, it meets the dictionary definition of a gaffe -- even if it was an innocuous statement. With that said, you've provided another fine example of a gaffe for purposes of establishing the definition here. A pro-Romney interpretation is that his statement is literally true -- the core of a business consists of owners, employees, and investors, who are all people. Copy machines don't make decisions. There's nothing wrong with saying that, if that's what he meant. But it was most definitely a political gaffe, though, because it was negatively received in the context of the corporate lobbying situation, etc. Wookian (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that none of these so-called "gaffes" are worthy of an independent article, regardless of how many Google hits they receive. They all belong in the campaign articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It's dangerous to make universal generalizations, but I can't think of a counterexample here and so will agree with you. Wookian (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Films about Obama

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Barack Obama#Films. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding removal of verified content, change in scope, NPOV

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:You didn't build that#Removed verified content. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting creation of Speeches and debates of Barack Obama

There is nothing valuable about individual speeches, including "You didn't build that", as there is some value about Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan. In fact, I wonder if anybody here can create a list of speeches and debates by Obama. --George Ho (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of You didn't build that for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article You didn't build that is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You didn't build that until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama-lantern.JPG

file:Obama-lantern.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

List Peer Review for Dan Savage bibliography

List Peer Review for Dan Savage bibliography

Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive2. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Barack Obama

There is an RfC on Talk:Barack Obama#RfC: Should "the first African American to hold the office" have a footnote in the lead?. Please comment there. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

you didn't build that and Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago

I proposed mergers of these articles. Please improve consensus by going to talk pages. --George Ho (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullrun (code name)

The article is about a U.S. government operation that began in 2000 but was just made public this week. Is it in the scope of this wikiproject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybec (talk • contribs)

Unless reliable sources specifically link this to Obama in a significant way, I cannot see how it can be part of the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Barack Soetero

Barack Soetero has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided because this article is listed as being of interest to this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

2012 Benghazi attack

A discussion has begun in order to gain a consensus on whether to include or exclude material involving the CIA and weapons smuggling in the article. Please weigh in on the discussion at the talk page. This may also be a good time to reassess the rating on the article. Thank you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive3

Please come comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Barack_Obama/Archive_1&oldid=1110274342"