Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:40, 16 March 2009

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Family and religious background

Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?

A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of the Muslim faith. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [1], [2], [3] The sub-article Public image of Barack Obama addresses this issue.

Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial," "mixed," "Kenyan-American," "mulatto," "quadroon", etc.)?

A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. Thus we use this term in the introduction. Keep in mind, many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American." Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body.

Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it?

A3: Per the manual of style guidelines on names, it is appropriate to only use the person's conventional name outside of the lead. Talk page consensus has also established this.

Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common?

A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names.

Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc?

A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

Controversies, praise, and criticism

Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section/article?

A6: There may yet be one, and that section may in fact simply link to criticism/controversy article. Note that such sections are both conventional (common on Wikipedia) and controversial (often flagged for deletion). The debate, both site-wide and here, is ongoing. The arguments against and for such a section here are as follows:

Against: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT.
For: It is Wikipedian convention to create such sections on controversial articles, to serve as a portal into criticism of the topic. The argument against such "criticism of" sections (and articles) is a site-wide one, which defies the site-wide convention, and is in fact a WP:SHOULDNOTEXIST argument that has yet to find the support of site-wide consensus. Creating a "criticism of" article likewise helps the other Obama articles, by sandboxing POV editors seeking to disparage the President, yet allowing the dimension of "criticism" to be handled at all; some nominal work is required to keep such articles NPOV.

Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?

A7: Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "[c]riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles.

Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article!

A8: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD.

Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy.

A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored.

Talk and article mechanics

Q10: This article is over 100kb long, WP:SIZE says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?

A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of June 22 2008, this article had about 6500 words of readable prose (37kB according to prosesize tool or 41kB according to wc), well within the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit.

Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?

A11: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article.

Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this?

A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache.

Disruption

Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly?

A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and/or topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics.

Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed!

A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion.

Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article.

A15: That's understandable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines, and attempts to do so are regarded as disruptive. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged.

Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted!

A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content -- sometimes the same violations multiple times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior:

Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted.
On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance.

New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Wikipedia's policies and sourcing guidelines.

Other

Q17: Why isn't the 2008 presidential campaign covered in more detail?

A17: It is, in a sub-article called Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaign, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in that sub-article. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaign can all be found there.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="{{divstylegray}} padding:2px;"><center><b>Controversies, praise, and criticism</b></center>
 {{FAQ row
-|q=Q6<nowiki>:</nowiki> Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?
+|q=Q6<nowiki>:</nowiki> Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section/article?
+|a='''A6''': There may yet be one, and that section may in fact simply link to criticism/controversy article. Note that such sections are both conventional (common on Wikipedia) and controversial (often flagged for deletion). The debate, both site-wide and here, is ongoing. The arguments against and for such a section here are as follows:
-|a='''A6''': Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per [[WP:CRIT]].}}
+* '''Against:''' Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per [[WP:CRIT]].
+* '''For:''' It is Wikipedian convention to create such sections on controversial articles, to serve as a portal into criticism of the topic. The argument against such "criticism of" sections (and articles) is a site-wide one, which defies the site-wide convention, and is in fact a [[WP:SHOULDNOTEXIST]] argument that has yet to find the support of site-wide consensus. Creating a "criticism of" article likewise helps the other Obama articles, by sandboxing POV editors seeking to disparage the President, yet allowing the dimension of "criticism" to be handled at all; some nominal work is required to keep such articles NPOV.
+* <!--To discuss this issue in particular, see '''[[Talk:Barack Obama/Criticism of]].'''-->}}
 {{FAQ row
 |q=Q7<nowiki>:</nowiki> Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?