Talk:Barack Obama

Redundant discussions

In case anyone is wondering if they have an original comment about one of the frequently-discussed issues for this article, here is a list of discussions at length which have taken place just in the past couple of months.

Race

• Talk:Barack Obama/race
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Barack Obama is half-white
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Ethnicity in first sentence
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Media coverage of ethnicity controversy and the intro
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Mulatto, the term is Mullato
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#He's Multi-Racial.
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 43#Obama and race

Religion

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Religon
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Religion

Citizenship

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Supreme Court Controversy
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Still no mention on the birth certificate?
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Donofrio v. Wells
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Unverified Birth Hospital Needs Revision and Reference

Full name

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Article Name
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Barack Hussein Obama JR, not II

Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion about Obama's birthplace, citizenship, race/ethnicity, etc. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to read about where Obama was born and have concerns about it, read Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Citizenship facts, rumors and claims and in particular this source which is heavily utilized in the article.

Creating (yet more) links on the page

A number of organizations that Obama was involved in or acted on the board of directors for don't have hyperlinks. Example, the Center for Neighborhood Technology. I think it would be beneficial to give people access to that kind of thing, and most of them have either their own webpages or wikipedia pages, so why not link to them? Unfortunately because of the (necessary) lock on the page, it's difficult to add those links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealintomorrow (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 4 March 2009. I wonder how fast this comment will be censored. :) Wikipedia is really getting be be a joke! Unfortunately, this is a really great concept being more and more poorly executed! I'll guess I go back to using Google to find facts, because I just don't feel Wikipedia is unbiased anymore. If they can work with respond acurately and forcefully to http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 then maybe the reputation can be rescued. Otherwise, Wikipedia will probably become something of a joke similiar to the Washington Post, et al, along with the accompanying drop in users, readers, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't he called "Barack H. Obama"?

Like Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and so on? 203.211.75.108 (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pure stylistic choice, as far as I can tell. George W. Bush employed the middle initial primarily to distinguish him from his father. The others did it because it mainly because it sounds good (compare "John Kennedy", "John F. Kennedy"). Dcoetzee 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan & Bill Clinton aren't called by their middle names. We name articles by the most common usage. Barack Obama is more common than Barack H. Obama. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 05:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick, without peaking, name the middle initials of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or James Madison. I can't do it, but I'm sure some editors can. However, in any case, the simple fact is that different presidents (or those who write about them) have made slightly different choices about which parts of their names to use most commonly. Obama happens to be one with "middle name/initial usually omitted." LotLE×talk 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

None of those presidents had middle names.TomCat4680 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilson did. It was Woodrow. It's of course not uncommon that people use their middle name as their first name Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why do we call Adams "John Quincy Adams"? Are there other Adams to confuse him with? Why not just a middle initial? Truth be told there's no rhyme or reason. Padillah (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

His father, John Adams was the 2nd President 199.47.41.143 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What little faith I had in the American education system is plummeting quickly. As far as the rhyme or reason for the use of the middle name/initial on some presidents vs. others. You'd have to ask historians about that. The naming of our articles on the presidents seem to be inline with how they are referred to by historians and thus inline with the common names guideline. Barack H. Obama and Barack Hussein Obama are only common names amongst an extreme minority and thus the article is using his common name. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And, in a practical sense, there's no Barack W. Obama or Barack Q. Obama out there he's likely to be confused with. PhGustaf (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, many early presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, did not have middle names at all. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, imagine how silly we would look if we had "Jimmy E. Carter" and "Bill J. Clinton". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that prior to W. George H.W. Bush was generally referred to simply as George Bush AFAIK. Even nowadays, I suspect if you say George Bush people are more likely to assume you mean H.W. then W. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I cannot find sources, but the answer is simply the stylings in cycles. Notice that Grant, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur all served in the same historical clustering as post Civil War presidents, and that the other five you mentioned succeeded each other in a similar cluster of time. GW was to differentiate between his father, much as we do John Quincy Adams. Keegan^talk 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

2 "References" sections

Shouldn't the one containing the {{reflist}} tag be called Notes per WP:CITE and for both consistency and accessibility. It does not make sense to have them both named the same thing. I didn't want to make the change without discussion. Calebrw (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to Notes and References. I don't see where this would have been a controversial change... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It was originally called notes. Some editor changed it without bothering to ask or to look and see that there was a separate section called "references". I thought I had reverted, but it seems that it didn't work for some reason. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Calebrw (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Occidental College

Does it really matter that he didn't graduate from there? He spent half his undergraduate career there. Why discount it just because it wasn't where he spent his final years? I don't think there's anything wrong with being inclusive here. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please stop reverting the article. Telling others to discuss the issue in your edit summary doesn't make it okay. Discuss the issue here yourself or shut the hell up. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:57, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

According to the Alma mater article, that term applies to "the university or college from where a person has attended or graduated." Under that definition, Occidental College should be mentioned in the Infobox. SMP0328. (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And by the way, Equazcion, I edited this passage ONCE. That is nowhere near WP:3RR, in spirit or in reality. So the next time you crawl up on a high horse and decide to call someone out in an edit summary, it might be smart for you to get your facts straight. And I have now done #2, as this user's revert was clearly done in bad faith as an exercise in point-making, rather than in the spirit of improving the article. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was in error when I warned you of 3RR. That having been said, 3RR isn't absolute. You're not supposed to edit war in order to get your version of the article instated, but discuss instead. And there was absolutely nothing bad-faith about my edit. There's no need for accusations. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:22, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, in restoring the reference to Occidental College in the Infobox, referred to its removal as a "bad faith edit". I don't agree with that description. While I agree with the restoration, I believe the removal was in good faith. Whether "alma mater" included Occidental College was not clear. SMP0328. (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to Equazcion's edit, not the newbie's. The former was made to make a point about a (wrong) assumption about 3RR. Not about the subject matter itself. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It was an attempt to put a stop to the edit warring, not to make a point about 3RR. As someone relatively uninvolved I thought it might do the trick. If I were an admin I would've protected the article instead, but since I'm not, this seemed like the next best thing. There's nothing bad-faith about that. You'll notice I actually reverted to the version I disagree with. Besides which, if you think continuing the revert war based on the subject matter is somehow more proper, I'd say you're mistaken. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:37, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

The best way to put a stop to the edit warring is simply not to edit it again, but to come here and discuss it. While it may be irking that editors put in their edit summaries: "please discuss in talk page first," it means just that. Why not discuss it before elevating the issue to a revert war. While WP:BOLD may mean at times go on in and fix what you see wrong, it also means that maybe it might be better to bring it to the talk page first and discuss it. Sometimes what you see wrong may not actually be wrong in the first place, or is a product of a long running argument that led to a consensus version. Changing things because you, as the editor, want to see it differently is not a good excuse to change things and can even be argued as just trying to make a WP:POINT. Brothejr (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin attended FIVE different colleges for her B.A. alone, but the only one listed is the University of Idaho. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S HER ALMA MATER. Your alma mater is not "any school you attended", it's WHERE YOU GRADUATED FROM. I cannot find a single other Wikipedia page, besides Obama's, that features a school that person DID NOT graduate from as their "alma mater." It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.111.52 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, an alma mater is anywhere you attended. Graduation is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that doesn't matter. The only places traditionally considered "alma mater" and the once places recorded in this spot on someone's Wiki page are where they graduated from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.111.52 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I Agree 72.207.65.76 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama spent two years each at Occidental and Colombia. They were both important to his education and both deserve mention in the infobox. I bet Occidental considers him enough of an alumnus to ask him for money. PhGustaf (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For those arguing for one college equals one Alma Mater, then how about this real life example: A person goes into a program where they first start out in one college for two years. Then they finish their last two years in a different college graduating with a bachelors degree. After a couple more years they attended a third university and attained their master degree. Finally they went to a fourth university and graduated with a doctorate. They technically graduated all four colleges, receives alumni mailings from all four colleges, and thinks fondly of all four colleges. Which is their Alma Mater? (I personally know this person and I've heard of hundred and hundreds of others doing the same thing.) Brothejr (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Facts about Barack Obama

Resolved

 – And we are done here. If you have something to add that in some what relates to the article, and isn't a crackshoot from WND or the Drudge Report, feel free to post a new thread below. This is not a general forum. seicer | talk | contribs 03:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed and archived per above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is wikipedia not allowing edits that question Obama's eligibility? It has been widely reported from many news sources and there are several court case at various levels of the legal system ranging up to the supreme court. Further his associations with Rev. Wright and Ayers are not allowed to be posted. Why is wikipedia allowing a whitewash of history? These are relevant to the historical account. Facts are facts no matter how inconvenient they may be to someones ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt1604 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) This is an easy one: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Things that violate WP:BLP aren't "allowed" - otherwise, if you can find citations from reliable sources, it is allowed. But if it can't be properly cited...then it can't be in there, simply put.  Frank  |  talk  00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The Chicago Tribune isn't a reliable source? Read Wikipedia's standard: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Guess what? Reliable sources have been used and it's still being edited in a tainted way. The entry should be flagged until bias is removed (bias from anything critical about Obama on his page) Now, read what else Wikipedia demands: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. Does this apply to Obama or not? As the entry currently is displayed, bias is clearly showing by censoring ANY and ALL entries that may show controversy or negatively toward the President.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwitness (talk • contribs) There's an article about his campaign that goes into attempts to paint him with guilt by association. There's also an article that covers all of those frivolous court cases at some length. Those articles have been out there for months, and anyone who knows how to spell "Barack" can find them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC) That doesn't make any sense. This is an ongoing controversy. It is quite easy to verify the truth, from most notable news sources, that this is, in fact, an ongoing controversy. So, again, why no mention of the controversies in the article? 69.248.3.210 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Additionally, if such material is added to the article, I recommend any such material be put into a new section. That way, it will be easier to integrate into the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I have restored the neutrality tag, because this discussion is ongoing. I've seen this discussion over at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. As long as at least one editor believes the article violates NPOV, that tag must stay. SMP0328. (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Can you point to this ongoing discussion? And no, NPOV tags should be used when disputes cannot be resolved. A single editor complaining about an article does not validate tagging. You've got to have actionable issues with the article. Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) It makes no sense to apply NPOV when the info about Obama's ineligibility controversy is verifiable by linking it to Chicago Tribune, a reputable newspaper. If anything, it seems that leftist bias of an editor is preventing a discussion about a very important issue. It is hard to believe that one biased part of leftist "machine" can murder our quest to get to the full truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokietek (talk • contribs) Wikipedia does in fact have a lot on this subject Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories. Do the fringey theories merit inclusion in the main article? They do not. IronDuke 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I propose implementing the solution to a similar problem at the Sixteenth Amendment article. I tried doing it, but was reverted. SMP0328. (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Because it gives undue weight, i.e. undeserved dignity, to a fringe theory that the courts have already rejected. WND and others are desparate to keep it alive. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) It's clearly fringe material, on the far outer edge of the campaign period blog attacks. Not a single serious reliable source ever reported either questions surrounding his birthplace, or the "natural born citizen" rule, a legitimate claim. The few that reported it at all simply said that somebody made the claim, and the few lawsuits that were filed were not by reputable plaintiffs and all were summarily dismissed. The fact that fringe litigants file frivolous lawsuits against the president, and that partisan publications take up the cause, is not a significant issue in the life of a sitting president. If it were significant the reliable sources would cover it. Most issues that even get a few words of mention have hundreds of reliable sources to establish weight - things that take up paragraph have thousands to tens of thousands of articles. Wikipedia does cover the fringe Obama theories in depth in its own article. But space is limited here in the main article about Obama, and we do not have room for every conspiracy theory people care to believe on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Correct. It is on Wikipedia; we do not censor. However, a Presidential article is long and we can't have everything in it. Since the Kenya thing has little to no factual basis, we place it in its own article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Neutrality dispute? The page is tagged, but I can't find any active discussion here. Am I missing something? Guettarda (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC) See the above discussion. SMP0328. (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The tag is totally frivolous, and every question the original tagger raises is answered elsewhere. I have posted a complaint about that conservapedia/conspiracist drive-by at WP:ANI. This article is under probation for a good reason. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I do not believe the citizenship issue belongs in the main article. The conspirary theories page is appropriate for that. However, references to the Ayers & Wright controversies absolutely belong in there. These were major issues during his campaign and eventually became some of the most prominent arguments against electing him. If that is constantly edited out this article will continue to be in violation of Wikipedia NPOV guidelines KK5000 8 March 2009, 19:58 (EDT) So why isn't any negative or critical information allowed on the Obama page? As the previous poster stated, Ayers and Wright were legitimate election controversies. If Wikipedia censors only from the left, it is useless as a source. Those aren't bad points, but they're wrong from a Wikipedia point of view. We have stuff -- lots of stuff, on for example Wright: See here. The point being, yes, there are all sort of wonderful negative things one could cram into this article (and also any other majot politican's article) but there simply isn't room, and it isn't nearly relevant enough to make the cut for the main article. I mean... Ayers? Seriously? That's a footnote in the campaign article, let along the main BHO article. IronDuke 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I don't know where Ayers was a "footnote" in the campaign. Maybe on MSNBC. Ayers & especially Wright were covered extensively by the mainstream media. I am not saying an entire section needs to be dedicated to them, but getting a ban for merely adding them to the article when they should clearly be mentioned suggests zealotry on part of the admin. KK5000 9 March 2009, 02:48 (EDT) I'm AB-SO-LUTE-LY APPALLED to learn the censoring going on with this site. I have heard murmurings in the past on some of the podcasts that I listen to as to the validity of Wikipedia as a source for anything. I have at times felt irritated at the fact that my university restricts citing this site as a source for any material. Now I KNOW WHY! I guess I have to preface by giving my party affiliate so that this post isn't simply passed off as a political rant - I tend to dip left in my beliefs. That being said, there are a couple of key points that the site is missing with clear intent. The Ayers and Wright questions/associations is very much a part of this person's presidential bio in that it outlines how he was able to overcome the accusations of another party and rise to the occasion with the support of his voters. How can we just pretend it didn't happen??? As well, it is public knowledge that he has not made his birth records available to public by the simple fact that it's NOT public knowledge. I have seen the response by wikipedia authors that they rely on facts, but that is a twisted response. As a part of many other bios, there are mentions of accusations without conviction. I can assure you, I will only have a couple more limited visits to this site - for the sole purpose of seeing responses to this post. I am now much more enlightened with the ways on this wiki site, which is extremely unfortunate since it has for a long time, been one of the first places that I go to research a wide range of topics. Very unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.92.22 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Comments that Wikipedia is a whitewash This page if for good faith, civil questions and comments aimed at improving the article. Gripes about Wikipedia's supposed political bias, article whitewashing, censorship, etc., are unhelpful. However, rather than adding fuel to the fire by deleting them or closing discussions at this point, I suggest we just move them all to this section and let people discuss it here. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC) And yet as long as you separate ALL criticism from Obama's page, you are CENSORING his main page. Compromise: Why not have an entry entitled Criticisms and list all of that there? It appears that wikipedia is carrying obamas water. Pleanty of the "critics" claims about bush are STILL on his wikipedia page yet if you dare bring these you on obamas page you are banned? Shamefull. In fact why not just redirect the entire page to the whitehouse main page? Exactly. Why not remove anything critical of Bush while you're at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwitness (talk • contribs) Then why not give it a subset in the outline entitled Criticism or whatever you wish? You seem to have plenty of room for negative information concerning President Bush on his main page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwitness (talk • contribs) This article is clearly a whitewash. I am not some partisan hack with a dog in this hunt either. I am an expat political atheist who can read. All of the censors should be ashamed of themselves. The Wright issue was one of the most discussed issues of the campaign. It's not even mentioned here. In fact there's not a single non-positive element mentioned in this entire article unless you count the mention of his smoking and that's not necessarily negative. It's as though the Obama campaign wrote it. Shame. Ikilled007 (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your first contribution in three months. The article is factual, not positive or negative. Had Obama done something negative of note, let's say being arrested for drunk driving or the like, to be sure it would be in the article. As he has not, we just stick to the facts.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wrong. You are censoring it. And the internet has found out. NewsBusters and Wnd.com are running articles about the removal of the ties to Wright and Ayers. I'm really getting sick of the constant Liberal bias on everything I have to look at on a day-to-day basis. This is a blatant violation of the rules and banning users for 3 days after attempting to add referenced material on the Ayers and Wright connections is too. Enough is enough. --Justin Herbert (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Squawk! Another WND mindless-parrot heard from. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Your selective editing has extended ad infinitum into cyperspace, your credibility for all to seriously consider has now reached critical mass. read it here: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 Furtive admirer (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) If you actually believe what you read in that rag, you should go back to your college and demand a refund for having produced an ignoranimous. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) This is fun. I'm really hoping Rush picks up the story; these drones are so mindless and so pathetic. The marching morons.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC) As mentioned from an article linked from the DrudgeReport, Wikipedia is accused of censorship. When I look at the two pages (Presidents Bush and Obama), that accusation seems accurate. There is a statement on Pres. Bush's page that states "Many accusations have been made against the administration[120] for allegedly misinforming the public and not having done enough to reduce carbon emissions and deter global warming.[121]" If this is OK, then why can't Pres Obama have a sentence "Many accusations have been made against President Obama that [insert accusation here, see rest of Talk for examples]." There are accusations. Fact. Those accusations have been reported by reputable sources. Fact. Is it a fact that Wikipedia staff are bias? LinuxSneaker (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, no doubt. But as the staff are administrative only, and volunteers all over the world edit the encyclopedia, it doesn't really matter. Oh, I forgot to mention their "bias". They are all very big Yankee fans. Have a nice day!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Great reply. As an attorney, you deflect the conversation without answering the question. You've done way more editing then I - do you recommend (as a volenteer, not as a lawyer) that Pres Bush's or Pres. Obama's page get fixed? LinuxSneaker (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC) We recommend that you go back to your fellow parrots at WND, and tell them we're tracking all of you down, which is why the page remains unprotected at this point - so you will all expose yourselves. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Clearly you two are unbiased! Everyone who notes the whitewash must be a Limbaugh listener. What are you, the Obama SS? Your responses here are not helping with credibility. Ikilled007 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) There is nothing factually incorrect with the story. It is a true representation of the events on this page. The fact remains is this: It takes 3 Admins, working in unison, to squelch any/all changes to any article on Wikipedia. You make up any excuse you want, then have your buddies swoop in to agree with you; claim a 'consensus", then ban, ban, ban. The word is out. We know you're liberally biased. We are not stupid.64.53.138.18 (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) You people must be crazy, suggesting a criticism section for Barack Obama. Nobody is allowed to criticize him, how could you not know this? Bush's WP page is allowed to contain controversies and criticisms because he is a Republican, but how dare you suggest that reasonable criticisms be included. The Wright and Ayers controversies were a major part of the Presidential campaign but they may not be included because they may make Obama look bad. I thought everybody knew this. WP editors: YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!. - http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 24.187.128.136 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC) is that Barack Obama? a) yes B) NO Case closed, you propagandizing shill. 76.243.106.37 (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia's alreadly low credibility is sinking like a torpedoed submarine. 76.243.106.37 (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Editors and administrators are suppressing dissent.....this is a very troubling trend I don't think all the name-calling is helpful here. We really should be rising above all that. Having said that, I compared the articles on the previous 4 presidents with this one and any objective observer can readily see that Obama is being treated differently. Unlike those other presidential articles, there is practically no discussion of any of the controversial issues surrounding Obama here. (Don't believe me? See the articles on Clinton and GHW Bush to compare/contrast.) Certainly these controversial topics warrant their own articles, but complete censorship of any mention of these controversies or link to the ancillary articles in the main article damages Wiki's reputation, making this article look like a fluff piece and leaving the controlling administrators wide open to NPOV charges. One of the underlying principles of Wikipedia is that we should be writing these articles from the standpoint of consensus, and clearly consensus is lacking in the way this article has been handled. I find it troubling when I see negative references to Wikipedia's credibility making their way into the media. It is important that we maintain NPOV in Wikipedia. But no matter my (or your) personal opinion of Obama, the most important point of these discussions is not the content of the article, rather it is the way that differing opinions are being handled by certain factions in the Wiki community. I find it VERY disturbing that questions about the conduct of certain administrators and editors and their NPOV or possible lack thereof are being swept under the rug without a meaningful discussion. The (quickly) deleted comments by a previous poster were unnecessarily inflammatory, but I must agree that certain editors involved with this article seem far too willing to use the "memory hole". Discussion?: yes! Consensus?: yes! NPOV?: yes! Blatant censorship?: I know what my answer is; what is yours? (Now we get to wait and see how long this discussion topic lasts before it, too, is deleted!) NDM (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I have modified the heading here. If you want your contribution to stand you should honor the letter and spirit of article probation and WP:TALK generally, which is to use this page for suggesting improvements in the article. Crying censorship is not a suggestion for improving the article. If any editor's behavior troubles you there are appropriate forums for that but not here. With that out of the way the article is just fine. It is a reasonable, balanced treatment of the significant matters relevant to Obama's life and career. Of course it can be improved. Any article can be improved. But we'll have a hard time maintaining any reasonable discussion until all the ruckus dies down. Obama has not been President for very long, and there are (despite what partisans would wish to say off Wikipedia) simply no scandals or controversies of a magnitude comparable to those involving Bush, and particularly Clinton. Nobody is sweeping anything under the rug here. These pages are all in the open, and these matters have been discussed to the tune of hundreds of pages, each hundreds of thousands of bytes long. Wikidemon (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon: you have completely missed the point of my posting. Please reread it. I am not talking about "Criticism of Obama", as you have taken the liberty to label my posting. As the heading at the top of the discussion page states clearly: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I am also not talking about any individual editor's bias or behavior. I am talking about a longstanding institutional bias within Wikipedia which is rearing its very ugly head here in this article, that of a perceived "progressive" bias among the administrators by many of the editors. Your "modification" of my heading of this section seems to go a bit beyond the pale, especially when you state that "crying censorship" is not appropriate here. It appears that you have just done some censoring yourself. I have undone your revision of the heading, since it does not directly relate to the content of my posting. I would ask that you not modify it again, but instead limit your comments to the substantive issues that I raise vis a vis the conduct of certain factions within the Wiki community. The fact that "these matters have been discussed to the tune of hundreds of pages, each hundreds of thousands of bytes long" clearly indicates that the Wikipedia community does not enjoy consensus about how the administrators have been handling this issue, determinations of "consensus" by the administrative fiat notwithstanding. It seems clear that Wikipedia administrators can expect to continue to hear the protests from many of the editors as long as these heavy-handed tactics continue, and as long as they continue to label the bona fide dissent that continues to rage in regards to this article as "consensus". NDM (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Please don't edit war over article headings. You should know that it is generally considered appropriate to refactor discussion headings so they describe the discussion topic rather than advocate a position, and also to reorganize discussion pages. If you have a complaint about longstanding institutional bias, as you put it above, or "Editors and administrators are suppressing dissent.....this is a very troubling trend" as you put it in your preferred heading, then this is definitely not the page for that discussion. You're wrong about the state of consensus, and you don't seem to have made an effort to understand the history of this series of articles article about which you are being so vociferous, despite never having contributed to them before today. You're accusing me of censorship and going beyond the pale, so I don't see any point responding to whatever point you may be trying to make. This discussion should probably be closed and/or merged with all the other complaints today about supposed censorship, bias, and whitewashing. You have not been notified formally of article probation but I do suggest you read about it at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Wikidemon (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon: Please quit conducting your own edit war over the heading of my comment. Feel free to start your own comment section and give it any title you choose. If you feel you must continue to do so, perhaps we need to get an administrator involved to settle our dispute about this point. I have written my original comment in good faith and your changing of the heading of my comment is inappropriate as it tends to obscure the point I am making. I feel this falls under "Modifying User's comments." I must point out that I have not edited the main article itself, and your continued deletion of the title of my heading on the discussion page is vexatious....please stop. NDM (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC) As I told you, changing talk headings is fine, and they should be descriptive rather than contentious. I'm leaving a caution on your talk page and closing this discussion as unproductive. Try listening next time rather than doing battle. Wikidemon (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

President Obama's Oratory Skills

Cultural and Political Image

I recommend an addition to the second paragraph of this section starting “Many have argued that Obama is and adept orator on par with other renowned speakers…” While this paragraph goes to great lengths to mention President Obama’s oratory skills, it does not address his use of Teleprompters. While it is expected that he would use it for state addresses, his constant use of them for small trivial appearances begins to question his oratory skills. There have been a few occasions were the Teleprompters had failed and the President was criticized for less than spectacular speeches. I would recommend adding the following after the first sentence of the second paragraph:

However, President Obama has also been recently criticized for the constant use of Teleprompters.

I would also recommend adding the following references:

Moesbob (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps add to the teleprompter article? This article is intended to set forth the facts concerning Obama, not criticisms, not supports. Just the facts, sir.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How do the editors here respond to this? http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

Hi, if you read this talk page, you will see several discussions that touch on it. There is also a discussion going on at WP:AN/I. Please feel free to join in, but if you do, please sign your posts. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would respond that it is biased, unreliably sourced, fringe nutjobbery that has no place in an legitimate encyclopedia such as this. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What, the teleprompter question? Anyway, teleprompters can be fun. I recall when LBJ was droning on through one of his boring speeches when he suddenly started to repeat himself - something had gone wrong on the teleprompter, and he had to improvise. One of the funnier moments in a Presidency that pretty much lacked in humor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article and talk page maintenance

Suggest IAR and semi protection of talk page

I'm aware of the policy that both an article and a talk page should be protected simultaneously. Due to the heavy vandalism of this talk page, suggest we IAR and semi protect this talk page anyway for a limited period, say 72 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a strategy in play, referenced on WP:ANI, to let as many of these lunatics as possible expose themselves here, so that the checkuser case can cast as broad a net as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia Admins like Bugs allowed to resort to name calling? 64.53.138.18 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am an admin, then I am allowed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is the place for IPs and new users to point out errors on a semiprotected article. Sometimes they make good points, albeit not so much today. But I'm not in favor of disabling that feature. Now, if we could sell tickets to the talk page while the WND zoo is around... PhGustaf (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what Bugsy meant was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barrack Obama. I'm all for cracking down on sockpuppetry, but the downside of leaving the page unprotected for that purpose is having to revert anti-Obama/Liberal/Wikipedia rants and other types of vandalism almost literally every five seconds, which is a real pain in the ass to do. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe the user who requested leaving the shields down (was it Wikidemo?) should be consulted to see if he's got enough fish now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, who died and appointed me Wiki-dictator? It was just a suggestion. There are people around here who know a lot more than I do about CU and how to manage article melt-downs. But yes, I think we've had enough fun watching this. If there's sockpuppetry I'll bet we will find it at this point. If not, I think playing whack-a-mole with a swarm of dittoheads is not going to help the encyclopedia, and it will only give the dittoheads more to complain about. Wikidemon (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted it on the request for protection page. I asked for semi-protection. That should put the breaks on the IP's and the redlinks, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection is warranted in this extreme case. No comment on the content of t6e article other than that it isn't as balanced as it could be. Enigma^msg 05:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think protecting might just give them something else to shout about - they do love a potential conspiracy. Better to just quietly revert and not create another cause. Mfield (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may be moving beyond the scope of checkuser at this point. As the Good Word trickles down from the WND/Drudge queen bees down on to the unwashed masses, it is likely going to be different people with the same agenda. There's already a topic over at the FreeRepublic ("Wikipedia Scrubs Ayers and Wright From Obama Biography", can't link directly) about this and how to hit protected pages. Tarc (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

De-collapsed FAQ; collapsed internal questions to make more adhd friendly

Since it's pretty clear that a lot of people are seemingly unable or unwilling to read the FAQ when it's collapsed, I've gone ahead and de-collapsed it, but made it quite a bit less space-consuming by collapsing the answers, leaving only the questions as headers to collapsible sections. Hopefully this will help a bit more. --slakr^\ talk / 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's much better. It does take up a lot more vertical space, but that horse is out of the barn already, and people are more likely to read it if they can see which questions are addressed there. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory article

Folks might want to have a look at the recent edit history of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I don't know if I'll be reverted again, but I have to go, and besides I'm at my third revert, although I think it's pretty clear that this stuff meets WP:FRINGE and that the overall consensus here is that it is, indeed, a fringe approach. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposals to increase coverage of controveries

Comment by Skydiver99

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) There isn't one mention of Ayers or Wright on this page, which is patently absurd. There are people more capable of fixing this than me, so anyone with the stones feel free to give it a whirl. Skydiver99 (talk) Frankly, this whole page reads like a member of Obama's staff wrote it. There is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever regarding criticism or negative campaign coverage, and it is capped with a section extolling his virtues as a public speaker. Seriously? This is bad even by biased standards. Skydiver99 (talk) Then grow some "stones" and fix it yourself. Don't just drive-by and complain, that doesn't help anyone. Dayewalker (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) And please make sure you have read the right articles including Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008 and Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 as that is where information on the campaign that you can't find is located. Mfield (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I'm aware of what happens to users who dare to modify Obama's page in any way that isn't visibly positive to him: they get banned. Honestly, does dishonesty on a forum such as Wikipedia ultimately serve the pro-Obama cause? All that does is establish certain supporters of his as unscrupulous. One way or another, dishonesty ultimately sabotages all that employ it, because the truth gets out. Now, am I saying that it is an objective fact that Obama is bad? No. I'm saying that this entry is squeaky clean and actually reads like an ADVERTISEMENT for him. His press people couldn't improve on it as it. That's just wrong and violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Skydiver99 (talk) You do realise that there's an entire article on the Wright controversy, and another article on the Ayers controversy, and another on the citizenship issue? That there are well over 200 articles in and its subcategories? Wikipedia articles are relatively short. Obviously we can't get every detail of every bit of trivia into the main article. You realise that, right? Surely you aren't just spouting off without looking at the facts? Guettarda (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) And BTW, there are ZERO mentions of Wright and Ayers on his presidential campaign pages, even though both received serious media attention. Skydiver99 (talk) You mean apart from Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008#Impact_of_Rev._Jeremiah_Wright and this whole article Jeremiah_Wright_controversy? Mfield (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) (strange comment moved - Wikidemon (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)) ? Not sure what you mean but this is a biographical article about the man himself. Thing is we have other articles too, lots of them, on all sorts of topics, all edited by lots of people from diverse backgrounds. We are like a big book with lots and lots of pages. And we have links you can click on to get to other topics. It's amazing really. Mfield (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The Ayers issue was a tiny blip, at the very end of the campaign. It had no impact of the opinion polls, and barely existed outside of Sarah Palin's speeches. The Wright issue was relatively big for a short space of time, and it's covered. Guettarda (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion that fringe controversies be treated uniformly

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC) First of all I want to say that I don't think there's any question of President Obama's American citizenship. Also, in light of a recent and unfortunately controversial return to the discussion tonight, that my suggestion not be grouped with other since-archived proposals on the basis of redundancy. I am suggesting that either a brief mention or section be included on Barack Obama's main entry, or similar references be removed from articles that serve as paralleling examples. It was suggested elsewhere that the conspiracies compare to long-since refuted fringe theories regarding such things as the JFK assassination and the September 11 attacks and that their validity would share a similar fate. Yet, both conspiracies are documented -- albeit briefly -- on the main Wikipedia entries of these subjects. The September 11 attacks article has a small section referencing the theories. The John F. Kennedy assassination has a section referencing conspiracy theories. Even John F. Kennedy's main article mentions conspiracy theories in brief. These are much more publicized 'fringe theories' that have also been scrutinized to a much greater extent than this controversy, but which are given their place amongst the modern historical compilation on Wikipedia. In those terms, the question of Obama's citizenship is relevant enough to merit a mention on his main page, if only to redirect, as the other examples do, a reader to a more critical discussion -- and most likely refutation. To treat this case differently is indeed hypocritical, and only supports the claim that it's an example of politically biased censorship. That is what I have an issue with, because I would rather Wikipedia not fall under such negative perceptions. These are our Wikipedia Commons, and our knowledge-base, and while they should be dedicated first and foremost to the truth, an omission of historical elucidations serves only to deprive it. --Dan Lowe 06:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I'm reluctant at all to respond to a discussion that begins with a claim of hypocrisy, bias, and censorship. Each article stands on its own, so I'm not going into those other articles in any depth. Occasionally, conspiracy theories are relevant and important enough to the subject of an article to deserve a brief mention. Usually not. There are many of them in the case of Obama - he is a Muslim, he is gay, he is a fraud, he didn't really graduate from Harvard or serve on the law review, he is really a citizen of X (name four or five countries). The established editors who have worked on this page have made the same decision as nearly every unbiased respectable source that attempts to summarize Obama's life and career, namely that various fringe conspiracy theories do not add sufficiently to a telling of Obama's life story to be worth a mention in an article of this length. These decisions were not made lightly or in secret - the entire history of the process is transparent and available in the talk and article page archives. Over the course of many months dozens of editors evaluated, debated, and reviewed thousands of mainstream sources. The truth is that these sources do not give much weight to the theories. You can find spotty coverage here or there, but nothing on the order of the other key points we hit in the article. Giving undue weight to minor fringe matters would degrade the quality of the encyclopedia, as would succumbing to the ridiculous accusations of opportunistic partisans off wiki. They have been throwing mud at each other for a living. Now they see Wikipedia as a useful target. We hold the line on our standards here. We cover them all, just not on the main page where any mention would be out of all proportion. Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to standard/policy of George W. Bush Article

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. -- Brothejr (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The article on George W. Bush seems to mention, albeit briefly, at least one controversy that arose only in the context of Bush's campaign for the presidency: "Critics allege that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot and his irregular attendance." It doesn't seem consistent to insist that all negative/controversial items that arose during Obama's campaign can ONLY be mentioned in articles about his campaign. Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) There is no such insistence, and that is not the outcome. However, if something was mostly or entirely a campaign issue that did not significantly affect the person, his career, or even the campaign, it is hard to argue that it is important enough to include in the summary biographical article. On first hearing, Bush's military career seems to fit that but this is the Obama article, not the Bush article. If you want to improve that article I suggest you go there directly and address it as a matter of article quality, not a measure-for-measure attempt to make each politician's article equally positive or negative.Wikidemon (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Interesting. In Employment Law, the term "disparate impact" has been used to describe policies implemented by employers which, while facially (consciously) do not purport to discriminate, nevertheless end up with "disparate impacts" on various groups. Even if Wikipedia does not CONSCIOUSLY practice a liberal bias, in my experience there is a strong argument to be made that "policy" and attitudes such as those being exhibited here result in a "disparate impact" on non-liberal points of views. Lawyer2b (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Well, Reality has a well known liberal bias, but there is not much we can do about that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Disparate impact concerns rights of protected classes of minorities to receive commensurate treatment if in comparable situations. There's no equivalent for politicians, programs, and ideologies. Some pan out. Others do not. NPOV means we cover the world as it reveals itself through reliable sources - it does not mean we try to ensure equally positive treatment for every competing politican. Bush is one of the least popular presidents in history, leaving office during a terrible economy, got the US into a disastrous war on a justification that turned out to be faulty, and judged by most historians as one of the worst in history. Clinton was impeached for heaven's sake. There's no rule in Wikipedia or most other places that we have to find an equal amount of dirt on Obama just because he is a president too. Wikidemon (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No Mention of Wright

While the policy in A5 (not mentioning "fairly minor issues [that had] no significant legal or mainstream political impact) would seem to keep any mention of Obama's citizenship controversy out of his article, I don't think the same can be said for his association with Reverend Wright and the church where he preached. Those had both significant and mainstream impact. Does someone disagree? Lawyer2b (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably worth somewhere between two words and a sentence, as a matter of proportionality. It currently has a sentence, but in a footnote. If moved back into the main section it should be posed in a way that focuses on the relationship to Obama, and his decision to leave the church in light of the controversy, as opposed to focusing on Wright himself or the relatively modest campaign issue. However, it may be difficult to achieve any kind of consensus for a little while here given the editing issues.Wikidemon (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest waiting a couple days for the wnd and drudge trolling to die down and then posting a proposed edit here for consensus discussion. cheers, --guyzero | talk 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

With the amount of press that this had, including Obama having to address this publicly, there must be some mention in the text itself, perhaps a sentence or two, with a wikilink or a {{main}}/{{see also}} to the proper article. While it should not, and cannot be allowed to take an undue role here, its only mention coming in a footnote smacks of POV hagiography which expressly violated WP:NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would respectfully recommend three mentions of Wright. First, as Obama's mentor. Obama himself said so, and Wright's role in Obama's person life, as marriage officiator, baptiser and spiritual advisor. Seocnd, "The Audacity of Hope" title comes from a speech from Wright. This should be mentioned. Third, the leaving of Wright's church because of a swell of controversy. These three points should be understood by the reader. It tells the full arc of Obama and Wright's relationship. By putting each point in the article in places where it relates, we can avoid POV as none of these ponts directly relate to the views and controversial aspects of Wright and therefore we can avoid making the page about Wright directly. Bytebear (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you feel those should be in the article, then you are going to need to find a couple sources to back each of those parts up. The ref's cannot be World News Daily, Free Republic, Blogs, etc. The ref must pass WP:RS and WP:V and if you are not sure, post it up on the RS/N for a check. Also, the ref's must exactly say each of those points, nothing can be implied. There cannot be any synthesis or original research. If you can find ref's that passes all then, post them here and we can discuss the changes. Brothejr (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I know this was probably missed in the edit warring, but Thatcher seems to have added a rather NPOV and reliably sourced mention of Wright into the Personal life and family section.[4] I'd say we keep it, personally.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that before I posted the above comment and I also agree with what Thatcher posted, but my comment was to Bytebear and anyone else who wanted to post much more about Wright in the article. Also, before I forget, we must not violate WP:WEIGHT when we think to add more information about Wright to the article. Brothejr (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the controversy should go in political and cultural image, and the book title and the mentorship should go in the personal life. The same thing would be done with Ayers who is also missing. I will find the references if they are needed. Also for the WP:DUE, don't Ayers and Wright have their own articles for the controversies? That's pretty good for weight IMO. Soxwon (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do have there own articles. However, having their own articles is not a good argument for adding it here. As far as WP:WEIGHT is concerned, it has to be asked how much impact did these controversies have on Obama's life? When we talk about this, we don't mean what the WND, Drudge report, or any other right leaning internet publication mean's on what is/was important in Obama's life. Brothejr (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone disputing the facts of the three points I suggested? i think we need to first decide what to include, and then decide how to include it. Bytebear (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We are neither proving or disproving anything. It is up to you to prove those points and it is also up to you to provide the refs to back up the point. You will get no consensus or anything likewise without first doing that. Brothejr (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are references. I would prefer the first two points have references that are unrelated to Obama's denoouncement of Wright, but they are harder to find. I believe the NYTimes did a series of articles on Obama prior to the blow up, that would be better, and sources on the "Audacity of Hope" should reveal some Wright sources that are more neutral.

1. Obama's mentor, officiator at wedding and baptizer of children. This is in his own biographies, as well as documented here [5], [6] and [7]

2. The Audacity of Hope was a speech given by Wright, to which Obama himself gives credit in his own book. A self source should be sufficient, but here are more [8] [9] [10]

3. The controversy of leaving the church can be found everywhere, but here are some very reliable sources: [11] [12]

Regards. Bytebear (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The man went to the guy's church for 20 years, was married by him, had his daughters baptized by hime, and gave a lengthly national explanation about him and yet Wikepedia feels this is too minor to mention in the man's biography? Amazing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention he calls Reverend Wright his "Spiritual Mentor" in his autobiography. Though i'm guessing he claims it's only his mechanic, working under bus and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.107.211 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is really getting to be something of a joke. Crying shame, because it could be so great. Oh well, they'll probably censor this pretty quickly using some santimonious BS like not in compliance with regulation WP.BS or something like that. I think I'll time it and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.112.195 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking

I am going to make the edit that wikilinks Jeremiah Wright in the article. If anyone feels that this is an abuse of admin privileges instead of a janitorial correction, I will not contest a reversion. I will question their judgment, however -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it may already have been added Avi. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New section: first African-American

It is a misrepresentation that Barack Obama is the first African-American to become President of the United States. He is the first bi-racial man to become the president of the United States. This is verifiable through the fact that his mother was Caucasian. Michelle Obama is the first African-American to be the First Lady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsie4120 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is how he is commonly referred to, and he has never indicated he prefers another descriptor. We might as well keep it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please review the FAQ at the top of this page as well. Wikidemon (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Race is a social construct which depends on self-indentification. Obama identifies as African-American. Reliable sources call him the first African-American to be POTUS. We can only follow available, reliable sources. At the same time, his origins are clear in the article. Guettarda (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As has been said around eleventy-billion times, the "African American" designation comes from the preponderance of reliable sources that refer to Obama in this way. Some reliable sources use the term "bi-racial" (or something similar), but most (several orders of magnitude more) use "African American", and Wikipedia must necessarily reflect this. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama calls himself African-American, and so does all the mainstream, non-fringe media, so that's what we call him. rootology (C)(T) 13:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Elsie, have you read the FAQ at the top of this page? There is a useful discussion of this very point there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaints about Wikipedia

Consensus overrides Wiki rules of notability?

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Closed this before it devolves into another rant. -- Brothejr (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Facts be damned. Mob rule. 'Nuff said. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Context? Guettarda (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No Negative Information Mentioned....??

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Closed this before it devolves into another rant. -- Brothejr (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Screw You & Your Website Wikipedia!! You are a Liberal backed site, therefore do not show any negative information regarding this person's background. I am Boycotting your site since I know now that your site is bias, and will not show how dishonest and repulsive that the current President of the USA actually is!! World Net Daily has dedicated this report; http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 in your honor. Good Luck with your Liberal-Left Wing site you Bums!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.111.82 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fairness

As a computer medium that advocates accuracy, it is a concern to me that Obama has no critical views in his bio. I think it is a far strecth to make us believe their are none.From this day forward, I will no longer be using Wikipedia. If you fail to be accurate with something like this, I can only imagine what else you neglect. Information should be UNBIASED and because you cannot do this, I cannot use you.

Please feel free to read this and block it as I know you will.

Stewart

Wikipedia will mourn the loss of your patronage. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidents

I am new to Wikipedia I have read all the rules and regulations.My purpose of coming here was to read about American Presidents .I first read about the 43rd President George Walker Bush and then the 44th President Barack Obama ,[no middle name ?,] Anyone reading about Obama and not knowing his history would think he is a Saint,as opposed to Bush where every rumor and innuendo against his character is included.Shouldn't Obama admitting to alchohol and drug abuse and his association with anti American zealots and convicted criminals be included .You have not published a fair and balanced portayal of both men.You have contravened a host of your own rules and regulations and make me wonder about your objectivity and veracity of your entire web site. Jock311 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)]

If that is your assessment, I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Give him a break, Scjessey. If he's new and yet has read all of them, he must have read at an average of, uh ... how many kilobytes per second? -- Hoary (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair Bush was President for eight very controversial years. Obama's been President for a month and a half. You wonder why there's more in Bushs' article? Could it be that bush was President for 64 times longer than Obama? Give him a minute. Padillah (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush is at it's current location because of his father George H. W. Bush. If GWB's father had not been president as well, it's likely GWB's article would be located at George Bush, but in order to disambiguate the two articles from each other, we had to create separate articles and chose a more precise name for their articles. You'll also notice the first sentence in this article where it rather clearly starts off with Barack Hussein Obama II. Thanks for playing though. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

If somebody who's not on a mission from some loony-right website may raise a point hereabouts....

"Neither Obama nor McCain are is a Martian." / "The race was between Obama and McCain, neither of whom were was Martian." / "Nixon bequeathed Liddy and Colson, neither of whom have has met the fate that he deserves." In my idiolect, anyway.

Obama also introduced Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections and the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, neither of which have been signed into law.

In my idiolect, wrong. However, my learned friend Scjessey disagrees. Polite of him/her to compliment me on my faith; but faith be damned, it's grammar that interests me.

(I'd also stick a comma after "elections", or, better, put the phrase "a bill ... elections" in a pair of parentheses rather than commas.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama also introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, and the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, neither of which have been signed into law.

That's my take on the phrasing. Padillah (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying Obama also introduced [A] and [B], neither of which have [...] is grammatically correct? If so, I can only say that your idiolect and mine are different. -- Hoary (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Neither" is singular and should take "has" in this case. You may now resume reverting SPA IPs. PhGustaf (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not a straightforward as that. It appears that either usage is acceptable (info on this). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that either sounds fine, I lean towards HAVE because there are a plurality of bills so they have not been signed. That's my outlook, but I'm no English teacher so take it as the because it sounds better to my ear that it is. Padillah (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Klein article and POV tag

Proposal

I think we should add some sort of special talk header at the top of the page informing WND propagandists that their website cannot and will not be used as a reliable source for whatever claims they want to add to the article. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is WorldNetDaily ever considered a reliable source? If not, then I don't see what good adding such a header only to this article would do. SMP0328. (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for WP:SELFPUB, in their own article, they can be. Not for anything else. I don't think a header will work. These people are intent on enlightening us as to their views.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No NPOV tag?

How can anyone assert with a straight face that "Editors are NOT currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article"? As long as these "discussions" rage here on the talk page -- specifically concerning the balance/neutrality of the article -- how can the NPOV tag be inappropriate? Opelio (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Lawyer2b (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the recent disruption, and concern over the legitimacy and intent of a number of the edits, this is not a good time to be considering this. Let the dust settle, see who is truly interested in improving the article, and we can consider it then. However, I do not see that a viable argument has been raised that the article has bias problems or that editors who have participated to any significant degree in the article believe there is such an urgent problem.Wikidemon (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please remove this tag?[13] And please don't re-add it. There is little constructive discussion at the moment, and what is here is a mess. If we get past the sudden influx of suspicious editors, and external assaults on Wikipedia, and can't resolve this after going through the appropriate discussion and dispute resolution channels, then at least you have an argument for it.Wikidemon (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal who uses Conservapedia as a source of humour rather than information, but I have to agree that there are serious POV issues with this article. Not to have a single mention of Ayers or Wright on either this page or the presidential campaign page (although they are on the primary campaign page) seems incredible. As several people have said, Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about verifiability and it's clearly verifiable that both men caused large issues for Obama during both campaigns. The Wright controversy was so big it gets its own article. I would have to say they warrant a brief mention on this page. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 10:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think talk of this article being biased because it doesnt mention those issues is wrong, if they were left off the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 or Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 articles then that would be clear bias but its debatable if these issues were so important they deserve a mention on Obamas main article when theres so many sub articles going into more details about these things anyway. However a sentence or two at the most in the campaign section on this article mentioning them (or some of the setbacks during the campaign) would do no harm so i agree it should be included, especially the Jeremiah Wright thing because that issue led to his "race speech" which the media everywhere got obsessed with. But even if its not added i dont think the NPOV tag is justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're married and your spouse says, "There is a marriage problem," there is a marriage problem BY DEFINITION, whether you think there is or not. IF the NPOV tag means that some editors think the article may not conform to the NPOV policy, isn't it BY DEFINITION correctly placed on the article? Lawyer2b (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think its biased there for i dont think the tag is needed but if many editors do think the article is biased then the tag should remain. Just because one or two editors claim its biased doesnt justify the tag, people disagree and make claims on many articles.. half the wikipedia articles would need tagging if a small minority disagreeing with something led to a dispute or npov tag. I dont see any reason why there shouldnt be a sentence or two in the campaign section on some of the issues mention above and if people cant provide any decent reasons against it they should be added. If someone then removes it with out explanation, the tag would be justified in my mind. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to tell if many editors think the article is biased. Back in the fall we had a bunch of accounts claiming that the article was a whitewash because it didn't disparage Obama enough. They turned out to be a few editors who had each created multiple fake accounts. The article has been quiet between then and now. Now we have a huge surge of people mostly making the same claims, often uninformed and impertinent. Decent reasons have been given over the course of months, which may all be discussed in due time in an appropriate fashion. Nothing under serious challenge or dispute should be added at this point, particularly not an NPOV tag, without some consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are simply blocking the NPOV tag due to their own bias (check history, the most recent edit was removing the NPOV tag with 0 seconds of discussion). If someone removed all of the criticisms in George W Bush's entry, that the leftists here wouldn't slap NPOV on it immediately. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Criticism of Michael Moore was pushed to a secondary article, and criticism of Al Gore (including his insane ramblings about 'global warming') has been getting scrubbed since Wikipedia has existed. I think you can expect more debate on this subject now that Wikipedia's leftist bias has again been exposed. Sniper Fox (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the problem. Can we please remove the tag again now. And make sure it stays off? Wikidemon (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) I'm sorry, but I couldn't let this last comment pass without saying something. By referring to left-leaning folks as "leftists", making comments about Al Gore's "insane ramblings", and using WND as a reference you have disqualified yourself from usefully contributing to this discussion by exposing shocking right-wing bias. Decisions about what should and should not be in Wikipedia articles should be based on facts verified by a preponderance of reliable sources and carefully weighted to present a neutral point of view (which is not the same as presenting all points of view). The neutrality of this article is only disputed by biased editors seeking to make it fit their own point of view. An examination of the extensive talk page archive will reveal how thoroughly and carefully every aspect of this article has been debated and discussed, and the text is the result of reaching a painstaking consensus on each detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm definitely a left-wing editor and I'd still argue that the article is biased - albeit in a way that happens to support my personal opinions. The fact that two highly noteworthy events have been left off the article, both of which had negative connotations for Obama, seems odd. What's worse is that I've not seen any good reason why this should be the case. This debate has descended into "you're a biased lefty" if you want them off and "you're a biased conservative" if you want them on. If there is a genuine reason why neither story should appear - all I'm suggesting is a brief mention in the campaign section - then fine. Until then, it really does appear to be a very biased article that pushes a certain POV. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 13:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The two "noteworthy" events you are referring to have both received considerable discussion (please see the talk page archive). In both cases, they are only noteworthy in the context of one of Obama's political campaigns, whereas this article seeks to represent a summary of his entire life. When viewed from a historical perspective, it is clear that these events are not "noteworthy" at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm going to have to agree with Scjessey to a degree here. WND is a little to the right of Goldwater, and a little less reliable than my high school gossip maven. If an article "agrees" with WND, it is a clear indicator the article is strongly biased, and almost certainly contains serious factual errors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) They're not "left out" - they're in the appropriate articles. Every major politician has so many items that they do not all fit in the main article, and a great deal of discussion and thought goes into which items are in which article of the family of articles about each individual. Sarah Palin's editors discussed at great length before deciding what was appropriate in her main article, and what was appropriate in her candidacy article, and what was appropriate in her mayoralty article, for example. "Not in this article" does not mean "not here on Wikipedia". KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. As I was typing that last comment and then being eced twice, Thatcher has added a section about Wright, linking to the controversy article. I think that's pretty much fine now. It just needed a mention. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KillerChihuahua. The World Net Daily and Washington Times are not widely seen to my knowledge as mainstream sources. Their influence is roughly on par with something like Free Republic or The 700 Club, and they aren't widely acknowledged (or even known) by most of America or global audiences. They ought to be weighted and handled on par with similar sources. rootology (C)(T) 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that the WND doesn't qualify as a mainstream source. That would be akin to using Media Matters, Alternet, or some other left-wing website as a credible source. But I don't agree that the Washington Times falls in this category. I understand that you may not see them as credible -- but, then, plenty of people feel the same way about the New York Times, too. Them feeling that way doesn't make it so. The Washington Times is cited as a ref quite a bit throughout WP. It's a legitimate news outlet with a point-of-view -- which doesn't distinguish it from virtually any other. Signed with a Sn00p. (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm glad the wiki credibility issues are being brought forth in the mainstream media. The wiki entry for Barack Obama reads like a love letter, while GWB's reads like a HuffPo or DailyKOS entry. There needs to be uniformity, or there will be ZERO credibility. This comment will be deleted in 3...2...1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.12.2 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFL - which "mainstream media" are you referring to? Surely not WDN, Drudge or some other fringe website? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually bother with the political articles, because they are usually very neutral. Unfortunately, President Obama is a bit of a special case since his political rise and election has been rather meteoric. Scjessey, your analysis would be right if it were not for the fact that, up until now, Obama's 2008 electoral campaign is by far **the** most significant event in his young life. To put a mention of the biggest controversy faced in that time in his life is not bias. WND is not crazy, just decidedly right wing. That does not make it entirely innacurate. Though I am still pretty sure of good faith still being acted upon (especially with the new Wright mention) I think Wikidemon is the most correct here in saying the article should and probably will most likely change some when the hubbub has died down, and the trollers are gone. --XF22B (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XF22B (talk • contribs) 15:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But I don't so much think that the sources are the crux of the issue here. Plenty of perfectly mainstream, non-ideological sources for any of these matters can easily be found. I think the bigger issue is what matters belong in what article. And I think an argument can be made that some of these "scandal" issues (such as the Annenberg Challenge and his association with Ayers) primarily belong in some other article. That's not to say that they should be whitewashed altogether from the bio. But neither should they be prominently featured. This seems a fight between one group of people who think these things should be prominent in his bio, and another group of people who think they shouldn't be in the bio at all. I think both are wrong. Signed with a Sn00p. (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly a POV or unbalanced tag until the censorship of this article ends. It needs to mention the notable controversies and/or provide wikilinks to those articles. Rev. Wright wasn't a fringe story, it was covered by the mainstream press and was something Obama gave two speeches about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

Please stop removing the unbalanced or POV tag from the article. Until mention of notable controversies and criticisms are included, this article needs to be fixed. Adding a see also section that links to the notable stories is another possibility. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but just because a conservative ideologue manufacturers a BS article for a fringe website claiming Wikipedia left-wing bias, it doesn't mean Featured Articles should be sprinkled with right-wing propaganda and/or labeled as "unbalanced" (a word redefined by FOX). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned by a couple of other people, the removal of certain content from this article been documented by a news surce, and has been linked to by Matt Drudge, so it's going to get a lot of attention. And yes, it is Obama's supporters that are watchdogging the article. It seems that sourcing is more of a priority, and standards of proof are much higher, when content that is critical of President Obama is posted to Wikipedia. If you look at the George W. Bush, there is a section titled Image and Public perception, which gives a rundown of what his critics and supporters have said about him, and has a link to an artical called Criticism of George W. Bush. Obama has a smaller section called "Cultural and political image" which reads as neutral to positive, with a link to a completely separate article called Public image of Barack Obama (which, by the way, is locked) which also reads as neutral to positive. So yes, I think that there might actually be something to this crazy conspiracy theory that Obama's supporters are censoring content on his Wikipedia entry.--Drvanthorp (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support We should have a criticism section on our current president. Wikipedia's first and formost must have a neutral point of view, not get to the "truth". BTW, i voted for Obama, so i am not some right wing nutjob. Oldag07 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your vote is irrelevant. That a lunatic fringe of the blogpsphere is up in arms because they can't get their favorite Birther/Marxist conspiracy theories jammed into the Obama article is not notable in the slightest. Don't confuse the reverb of an echo chamber with actual notability/popularity. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Inasmuch as we are establishing a consensus, everyone's outlook is very much relevant. Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and even the recent Stem Cell policy change are controversial and they are very much real controversies. None of those is a fringe theory. There is not a group of 30 people that think Rev. Wright was a factor in the 2008 primaries, he was a factor. Do we give them an entire section? No. But the mentions currently do not give the proper weight to the controversies (Rev. Wright almost lost him the primaries if I recall correctly). Currently all the article says is it made him change churches. Not quite, he was called on to renounce Wright publicly and had to issue a speech that turned out to be very central to overcomming the controversy. The article hardly represents this well, at all. Padillah (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, we're not working to "establishing a consensus" on any of this. We're working on beating the vandals, trolls, and WP:SPA's back with sticks. This is a loosely-coordinated, off-Wiki meat-puppet attack, not an attempt to legitimately contribute to this or related articles. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to be my favorite site. Now it's not. I doubt they care. I don't care about Bush, Obama, the guy Obama beat, the Democrats, or the Republicans. But I do care about bias on this site, and it is very apparent to me that Wikipedia is strongly biased towards Obama. THIS president's page is completely devoid of any negative statements. Not even George Washington's page is so positive.--I Use Dial (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is one thing to maintain a neutral POV, what is going on here is something different, it amounts to a manipulation of the Wikipedia rules by the administrators of this page to prevent anything that they view as negative or deleterious to President Obama, under the guise and abuse of the neutral POV rule. If they wish to function as acolytes for Obama, they should take a job with the Obama administration, this is not the appropriate venue for such behavior. And worse it damages the instrument of the Wikipedia itself in the process. For better or worse, topics such as Obama's middle name, William Ayers, the Reverend Wright play a role in who Barack Hussein Obama is. To simply discuss these issues in no way creates a non-neutral POV. Frankly the bullying administrators need to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.33.42 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is going to get out of hand, and this isn't a war i want to fight. I got a life to live. However, I am not very happy with the events that happened recently, and I feel expressing that is a responsiblity I must take as an editor. A quick ctrl f search finds the word "critic" twice in the whole article. W, has a whole page. As for the birth certificate, it is no more notable than this quote out of W's page. "Critics allege that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot and his irregular attendance." A similar statement on the obama page is all they are asking for. Oldag07 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, "they" can go pound sand, honestly. Just because one president has something critical said of him does not automatically justify the inclusion of other critical statements of other presidents. The Wikipedia doesn't have the equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine, y'know. Criticisms are evaluated on their own merits, and judged accordingly. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

W. Bush had eight years to "gain criticism". Now you want to give Obama the same after barely being in office before any clear results from his presidency will show? Ridiculous.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia editors are simply blocking the NPOV tag due to their own bias (check history, the most recent edit was removing the NPOV tag with 0 seconds of discussion). If someone removed all of the criticisms in George W Bush's entry, that the leftists here wouldn't slap NPOV on it immediately. This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Criticism of Michael Moore was pushed to a secondary article, and criticism of Al Gore (including his theory about 'global warming') has been getting scrubbed since Wikipedia has existed. I think you can expect more debate on this subject now that Wikipedia's leftist bias has again been exposed. Restored prior delete of my discussion. This is a DISCUSSION page, it's not appropriate to delete someone's comments just because you don't agree with them. Sniper Fox (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Achilles' Heel

Collapsed and archived due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Closed this before it devolves into another rant. -- Brothejr (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This talk page is not here to rant about other editors or policies. Please take these discussions to the appropriate policy pages. Brothejr (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Barack Obama's entry in Wikipedia highlights and underscores Wikipedia's Achilles' Heel and greatest weakness: an inability to be objective and fair in its treatment of some people and issues. As the article below* demonstrates, a handful of Internet bullies advocating a cause or position can abandon fairness and objectivity in putting forth a whitewashed version (note to readers: watch for the negative feedback from this entry to highlight how these bullies operate!). Unfortunately, as a result, we the people need to be on our guard and use a grain of salt as we use Wikipedia, since this renders the site unreilable. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.8.101 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)