Talk:Barack Obama

New source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So your argument is that because it is currently in the news and thus is something big? As far as past presidents: Here are some on bush: [5], [6], [7] and then as far as Nixon there was this. (Also, note that at the time Bush 43 was in office, FNC was cheering his attacks on NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, etc.) Again, discounting current hyper-politics and conservative scorn, how does this merit as something big in Obama's life/presidency? Brothejr (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article.

I have started this RFC to avoid the back and forth editing over the use of the phrase "Rising star" in the article. The issue, as I see it, depends on two conflicting ideas, and I am not sure what the appropriate way to handle this is. Here, from my take, are the two ideas that are the source of the conflict:

• Wikipedia:Featured article criteria mandates that a featured article is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
• It is also important that Wikipedia article faithfully represent the information in the source material they cite.

So here is the crux of the problem. The source article, which is from a reliable source, uses the phrase "rising star". The idea that is trying to be expressed here is not under dispute. He was clearly a "rising star" in the sense of having a meteoric rise in popularity and importance due to his democratic senate primary win in 2004. The fact that such a rise in popularity and importance occured is not under dispute at all. Such an occurance is well documented in reliable source, and as such, it should most certainly have a prominent place in the article. The fact is a very important one, and should not be minimized or marginalized in any way. The problem is that the term "rising star" is slang, it does not represent writing which is "brilliant, and of a professional standard" as should be expected of an encylopedia article. The source material uses the phrase, but there must be some way that we can capture the concept while using language which is appropriate to the encyclopedic nature of this article. This RFC is intentionally being narrowly defined as how to deal with the phrase "rising star" from linguistic point of view. This is not an open debate over Obama's politics or importance or anything else. I just want to know how should we faithfully represent the source material without resorting to using the same slang that the source material uses. --Jayron32 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Put it in quotes "rising star" to indicate it is the wording of the source, and not a product of the article prose/style? Tarc (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a novel idea, but rather self-evident once you put it like that. What about taking it a step further. Why not do something like this:

"His landslide win in the Democratic Party primary during the 2004 Illinois Senate race, caused USA Today to call him a "rising star" in the Democratic Party."[8]

Such phrasing would maintain the integrity of the source material, but also make it clear that Wikipedia is repeating the use of slang in another source; such direct quoting would seem to be a reasonable solution to the problem, since it attributes the informal tone to the source material, rather than leaving it as part of the article. That seems a very reasonable solution. I think as long as we both directly quote the phrase, and directly name the source in the article, it solves the problem. What does anyone else think? --Jayron32 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes to much sense and would end this matter. Where is the drama in that :) j/k. Nice logical suggestion :) --Tom (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Well done. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good. Grsz¹¹ 21:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, looks good and keeps to the source. Brothejr (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the informal phrase "rising star" is used, it should be used as a direct quote to a source. However, I would prefer to avoid the informality of that term altogether, and provide a more encyclopedic wording of the same concept. There are occasionally catch phrases that become closely identified with a biographical subject, and are used by many sources. For example, Reagan as "the Teflon president" might ascend to this, or "Friend of Bill [Clinton]" might. Both of those are informal, but have become almost tropes, and might be mentioned as such. The term "rising star" is used much more generically, with little specific affinity to Obama; he has been described that way in many sources, but many other politicians have also been so described. Hence there is no special reason to insist on the informality for this article. LotLE×talk 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This RfC—based on Jayron32's unsubstantiated personal opinion that "rising star" is "slang"—is unfounded. The proposal to use scare quotes and attribute the description "rising star" to only a March 18, 2004 USA Today article—one of multiple, authoritative, cited sources for the description—is unneeded, inappropriate and unacceptable. Newross (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rising star

1. Jayron32's October 21, 2009 edit removing this sentence added to the lede six months ago by QueenofBattle:

   His prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party.

   is an improvement in accuracy—his U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory in March 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party; being a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party led to his selection to give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.
2. Unitanode's October 21, 2009 edit removing "as a star" from this 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection sentence revised eight months ago by Happyme22:

   a combined 9.1 million viewers saw Obama's speech, which was a highlight of the convention and elevated his status as a star in the Democratic Party.

   left it three words shorter.
3. Unitanode's October 21, 2009 edit removing "rising star" from this 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection sentence revised seven months ago by me (Newross):

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

   and rewriting it to say:

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

   left it awkward, inaccurate and unfaithful to the cited sources.

The noun "rising star" is:

• not a WP:Peacock term, as claimed by Jayron32 and Unitanode
• not Way too biased, as claimed by 67.60.50.5
• not slang, as claimed with no substantiation by Jayron32 using silly comparisons to actual slang phrases like "cool dude" and "the bitchinest cat on the block"
• not a colloquialism or "informal English", as claimed with no substantiation by Jayron32
• not found in reference works like:

  Cassell's dictionary of slang
  Informal English : puncture ladies, egg harbors, Mississippi marbles, and other curious words and phrases
  McGraw-Hill's dictionary of American slang and colloquial expressions
  NTC's dictionary of American slang and colloquial expressions
  The Oxford dictionary of modern slang
  The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English
  Slang! : the topical dictionary of Americanisms
  Stone the crows : Oxford dictionary of modern slang
  etc.

• according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 242 years old and defined as:

  a person or thing that is growing quickly in popularity or importance in a particular field <a rising star in politics>

• used in professionally written newspaper news articles over the last quarter century about the selection of these Democratic and Republican National Convention keynote speakers:

  Mario Cuomo (1984), Ann Richards (1988), Thomas Kean (1988), Bill Bradley (1992), Phil Gramm (1992), Evan Bayh (1996), Susan Molinari (1996), Harold Ford, Jr. (2000), Barack Obama (2004), Mark Warner (2008).

• used in professionally written Encyclopædia Britannica articles about:

  politicians Eric Cantor, Brian Joseph Lenihan, Peter Mandelson, George Osborne, Najib Abdul Razak
  physicist Enrico Fermi
  History of Central Asia - The Middle Ages - The Mongol epoch - Mongol rule (Timur)
  Japan - Domestic Affairs (Book of the Year 2001)
  The U.S. 2002 Midterm Elections (Book of the Year 2002)
  Germany - Government and Politics (Book of the Year 2003)
  The U.S. Election of 2004 (Book of the Year 2004)
  etc.

The noun "star" is:

• according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, over eight centuries old and defined as:

  5a : the principal member of a theatrical or operatic company who usually plays the chief roles
  5b : a highly publicized theatrical or motion-picture performer
  5c : an outstandingly talented performer <a track star>
  5d : a person who is preeminent in a particular field

• used once in the professionally written Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama

  (which is one-fourth the length of this amateurishly written Wikipedia article about Barack Obama)

These U.S. and international newspaper, newsmagazine, news service, and television and radio news networks reported that Barack Obama was a "rising star" in the national Democratic Party after his March 17, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory and before his July 27, 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address:

1. The Boston Globe
2. Chicago Sun-Times
3. Chicago Tribune
4. Christian Science Monitor
5. Daily Herald (Arlington Heights)
6. International Herald Tribune
7. The New York Times
8. Newsweek
9. Peoria Journal Star
10. The Philadelphia Inquirer
11. South Florida Sun-Sentinel
12. St. Petersburg Times
13. USA Today
14. The Wall Street Journal
15. The Washington Post
16. The Washington Times
17. Daily Nation
18. The Globe and Mail
19. The Independent
20. Associated Press
21. Newhouse News Service
22. ABC News
23. CBS News
24. NBC News
25. CNN
26. MSNBC
27. PBS
28. NPR
    etc.

in professionally written news articles such as:

1. Tilove, Jonathan (Newhouse News Service) (March 18, 2004). "Barack Obama: black Senate candidate a rising star." Mobile Register, p. A6.
2. Howlett, Debbie (March 18, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate". USA Today.
3. Harwood, John. (March 31, 2004). "Presidential politics overshadows rise of state-level stars." The Wall Street Journal, p. A4.
4. Romano, Lois (April 10, 2004). "Kerry sprinkles jobs message with attacks on Iraq policy." The Washington Post, p. A4.
5. Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). "Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7.
6. Kelley, Kevin (April 13, 2004). "Obama ahead in US Senate race." Daily Nation.
7. Kuhnhenn, James (May 24, 2004). "With seven retirements, control of Senate is at stake in election." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A02.
8. Kinzer, Stephen (June 26, 2004). "Candidate, under pressure, quits Senate race in Illinois." 'The New York Times, p. A8.
9. Schoenburg, Bernard (June 26, 2004). "Ryan quits Senate race; state GOP braces for a tough fight against popular Democrat." Peoria Journal Star, p. A1.
10. Mendell, David (July 7, 2004). "Fundraising has set record, Obama says; $4 million raked in in the last quarter." Chicago Tribune, p. 1 (Metro).
11. Healy, Patrick (July 13, 2004). "Kerry hones campaign themes; with the big event two weeks away, picks up pace, cash." The Boston Globe, p. A3.
12. Sweet, Lynn (July 14, 2004). "Dems plan to showcase Obama, Reagan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 26.
13. Zuckerman, Jill; Mendell, David (July 15, 2004). "Obama to give keynote address." Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
14. Krol, Eric (July 15, 2004). "Convention spotlight to shine on Obama." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights), p. 15
15. Gibson, William E. (July 18, 2004). "Parties prep for prime time, but networks cut coverage of conventions." South Florida Sun-Sentinel, p. 1A.
16. Miller, Steve (July 21, 2004). "Ryan hangs on to Illinois ballot; delay in withdrawal worries GOP, blocks new candidates." The Washington Times, p. A04.
17. Lannan, Maura Kelley (Associated Press) (July 22, 2004). "Times get tougher for Ill. GOP; in the land of Lincoln, one Senate candidate dropped out, and replacements aren't jumping in." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A03.
18. Wills, Christopher (Associated Press) (July 25, 2004). "Ready to take his place on national stage; Democrats' rising star will give speech at convention." The Herald-Sun (Durham, North Carolina), p. A5.
19. Zeller Jr., Tom; Truslow, Hugh K. (July 25, 2004). "Democrats, lend me your ears." The New York Times, p. 12 (Week in Review).
20. Smith, Adam C. (July 25, 2004). "The true Kerry may emerge in Boston." 'St. Petersburg Times, p. 1A.
21. Brackett, Ron (July 25, 2004). "The Parties' big parties." St. Petersburg Times, p. 10A.
22. Knowlton, Brian (July 26, 2004). "Convention themes aim for the center; Democrats in Boston." International Herald Tribune, p. 1.
23. . (August 2, 2004). "Star Power. Showtime: some are on the rise; others have long been fixtures in the firmament. A galaxy of bright Democratic lights." Newsweek, pp. 48–51.
24. Milligan, Susan (July 27, 2004). "In Obama, Democrats see their future". The Boston Globe, p. B8.
25. Paulson, Amanda (July 27, 2004). "Showcasing a coterie of new Democratic stars." Christian Science Monitor, p. 10.
26. McCarthy, Shawn (July 27, 2004). "Minorities looking for gains in battle for the presidency; support seen as critical in key states." The Globe and Mail, p. A3.
27. Cornwell, Rupert (July 27, 2004). "Democratic Convention: an unknown rookie, but can Obama be first black president?" The Independent (London), p. 5.
28. Merzer, Martin; McCaffrey, Shannon (July 27, 2004). "Looking ahead with eye on past." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A01.
29. Chancellor, Carl (July 27, 2004). "A rising star gets a key role tonight; Barack Obama, the keynote speaker, already has proven he can reach across societal divides and win support." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A10.
30. Wertheimer, Linda (July 27, 2004). "Obama to rise to stage in Boston." Morning Edition, NPR
31. Brackett, Elizabeth (July 27, 2004). "Rising star." The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS
    etc.

The cited March 18, 2004 New York Times and USA Today news articles and the two chapters (pages 235–259)—about the period between Obama's March 17, 2004 landslide U.S. Senate primary election and his July 27, 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address—in the David Mendell (author of the Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama) book Obama: From Promise to Power should be sufficient WP:Reliable sources to support this amateurishly written Wikipedia article's sentence:

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

Newross (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't think you are going to win any arguements here by continuing to refer to Wikipedia in such derogatory terms as an "amateurishly" written article. You seem to be missing the very basics of Wikipedia, namely that it is an encyclopedia written not by professionals, but rather by everyday folk. Also, there seems to be little need for the chronology of the sentence's edits, including identifying specific editors, as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. No one owns their individual contibutions. Lastly, haven't we already reached consensus on this?? QueenofBattle (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion to be incredibly shallow and unnecessary. For Christ’s sake, It’s just wording. It’s laughable.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. By amateurishly-written vs. professionally-written, I meant written-by-everyday-folk vs. written-by-professional-writers.
   I did not mean to disparage the hard work of editors who have made positive contributions to this article—many of whom have been driven away by its pervasively hostile and unpleasant editing environment.
   This article meets many featured article criteria and is not poorly written, but its strength has never been criteria 1(a): that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
   My point was that an accurate, reliably sourced term that is not slang, not a colloquialism , not informal language, and is used in professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles, should not be excluded from use in this written-by-everyday-folk encyclopedia article.
2. I noted when the changed sentences were last revised—6 months, 8 months, and 7 months ago—to show that the sentences had been stable.
   I noted who had last revised the changed sentences to show why they might be concerned about the changes.
   I agree that editors do not own their Wikipedia contributions, but it is not unreasonable for an editor who has endeavored to find the best available references and carefully word a sentence to accurately reflect those references, would take issue with casual changes to it made for bogus reasons (e.g. claiming—based on unsubstantiated personal opinion—that "rising star" is "way to biased", or a peacock term, or slang, or a colloquialism , or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles).
3. No, we haven't already reached consensus on this.

Newross (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If the term amateurish offends you so much then why not go pro. Until then accept that you are an amateur and deal with points as they come, not sweep them under the rug because you disagree with the manner in which the point was presented. I nominate user QueenofBattle for speedy deletion based on argumentativeness and general incompetence.

Very brief reply

You appeal to authority, citing David Mendell, author of the EB article on Pres. Obama, as someone who used that phrase. Yet, you fail to mention that the article he wrote doesn't actually use the phrase. Do you care to comment a to why you think that might be? We are not a news outlet, a radio talk program, or any of the other sources you cite. That these sources call him that allows us to quote them calling him that, but to call him that in an encyclopedia article seems PEACOCK-y, and not just to me. There are others here who agree that if we use the term, it needs to be in quoting a source, and even Mullen himself didn't put that in the EB article, at all. UA 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I was appealing to evidence that ten Encyclopædia Britannica articles using the term "rising star" to describe politicians demonstrates that it is used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles and is not informal English.
2. I did not say David Mendell used the term "rising star" in his Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama; I said he used the word "star" once in his Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama.
3. I cited chapters 17, 18, and 19 (pages 235–271) from David Mendell's book Obama: From Promise to Power as one of four sources for the sentence:

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

   because it is good source and refers to "his rising star" (on page 247) and being "a rising star" (on page 268).

Newross (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to say, I concur completely with Newross on the linguistic and encyclopedic appropriateness issues. The very section we are currently writing/reading was titled "RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article". On that basis several editors weighed in with support of removing the term, and in doing so repeated or expounded on the misnomers "slang" and "informal language". Yet the term in question, rising star, is neither slang nor informal language, and this fact presumably comes as a surprise to those editors who have thus far weighed in. (Making it more surprising when someone claims a consensus has already been reached—on the basis of a collective misunderstanding that has already come to light?!) It seems to me that, at a certain point in time, the fact that Barack Obama was a "rising star" was the argument against him as much as it was the argument for him, so peacockery is an odd complaint now.

Jimmy Carter was anything but a rising star in the party in the years prior to his presidential run, with the popular response being "Jimmy who?" Richard Nixon, on the other hand, was so far from being a rising star as to be thought of as yesterday's news—"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore". That some people are and others are not rising stars is neither an irrelevant nor a superficial aspect of their path to the White House. I don't see what the problem is with noting that here, given the plethora of reliable sources Newross points out for the term's application to Obama dating to that period of several months alone, that Obama was in fact a rising star.

Where I differ from Newross, however, is the time period for which the term is most appropriately used. Election to the state senate doesn't make you a rising star, it makes you a state senator—one of more than a thousand otherwise anonymous state senators in the country—unless you distinguish yourself otherwise and/or fate or a recognition of your potential results in other doors opening for you. Obama's true rising star period—and the one worth acknowledging in the lead—revolves around his address to the convention, beginning with the second two-thirds of the refs Newross gives, which are about him being picked to give that convention address and not actually about his state senate win—and reverberating across the country with the national press coverage and increased name recognition afterward. It was his fame (and comportment, eloquence and compelling story, etc.) in this period, and not in the pre- and post-state senate win period—that allowed for his swift progression to U.S. senator two years later and president two years after that, a rather swift and biographically quite remarkable ascendancy. (Is a singer, for example, a rising star the moment a local showcase draws the attention of a big-time agent and manager and record company, or at the moment they make their national debut?) Did dozens of local and national media and Dem party people see Obama's potential earlier? Certainly. Is that the part of Obama's rising star status that bears being singled out in the lead? I would argue that it is not. Had Obama not been picked to give the convention speech—or had he fumbled it miserably—his star might well have been limited to that of big fish in the Illinois pond, at least for a few more years. Had Obama won the primary but merely came in a strong second in the general for the state senate, I'm guessing he would've been encouraged from inside and outside the party to run for U.S. Senate anyway, allowing for continued ascendancy. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and setting a course or breaking a stasis may be the most significant point from the standpoint of the individual, but from the standpoint of the journey—the bio—the "rising" part within the party comes in the shift from a local to a national stage. To give more emphasis on star status in the national party to the state senate win specifically than we do on the convention speech, from pick to delivery to reaction, is I hope an obvious mistake, and I reiterate that Newross' own refs seem to support that.

To the initiator of the RfC, Jayron32, then, from "the linguistic point of view", there is no basis to object to the use of the term, free from quotes or textual attribution, in the manner that QueenofBattle added it (as the result of discussion at the time, if I recall correctly), and the way to deal with it is to restore it as it has stood these past six months (or in some improved way), linked to the period surrounding his convention speech, and not to his state senate win. Abrazame (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC Restricting my commentary to the nature of the language of "rising star," I think Newross' research on this point is conclusive, and it can be used without scare quotes in the narrative voice of the article. Ray^Talk 16:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to RFC The term "rising star" is widely used in several fields, it clearly applies here, it has and can be used in professional writing, it is engaging. Thus, it is fine for use in this article without quotes or in-text attribution. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Belated reply to RFC I have to agree with Newross, Ray, Wasted Time R and any others I might have missed - the term "rising star" is completely appropriate for this article. Tvoz/talk 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses.
I don't quite understand Abrazame's references to Obama's election to the state Senate.
No one said his elections to the state Senate (in 1996, 1998, and 2002) made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party in 2004.

• I am not recommending using "rising star" in the lede, which per WP:LEADCITE is a summary of the article and does not cite any references.
• I am saying that in the 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection of this article, "rising star" is the best and most historically accurate description of Obama's status in the national Democratic Party the morning after his March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory—as reported in the cited references: David Mendell's 2007 book Obama: From Promise to Power and in contemporaneous news articles "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born" in The New York Times and "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate" in USA Today.
• Obama's status as a rising star in the national Democratic Party and the favorite to win an important Republican-held U.S. Senate seat (the U.S. Senate was then narrowly divided with a 51-49 Republican majority), landed him on the Kerry campaign's short list of potential Democratic National Convention keynote speakers along with several Democratic governors from swing states: first-term Governors Jennifer Granholm, 45, of Michigan; Janet Napolitano, 46, of Arizona; Mark Warner, 49, of Virginia; Bill Richardson, 56, of New Mexico; and second-term Governor Tom Vilsack, 53, of Iowa.
• Kerry selected Obama as keynote speaker after being impressed by Obama while campaigning with him in Chicago on April 8–9, 2004[9] and again on June 29, 2004,[10][11]—four days after E. J. Dionne's Washington Post column "In Illinois, a star prepares" and the withdrawal of Obama's Republican opponent Jack Ryan,[12][13]—and one day after the July 5, 2004 issue of Time magazine hit the newsstands with a large color picture of Obama accompanying the two-page article "Dreaming about the Senate" on pages 34–35, followed on page 36 by the article "Leaving blacks cold" about the Kerry campaign's tepid support by blacks. On July 2, 2004, the Kerry campaign informed Obama that they had chosen him to be the DNC keynote speaker.
• After the Illinois Senate adjourned at 8:13 pm CDT on Saturday, July 24, 2004, Obama flew from Springfield, Illinois to Boston to appear on three of the five television network news Sunday morning talk shows.
  • As the lead guest on Tim Russert's Meet the Press on NBC, Russert's second question to Obama was about Ryan Lizza's Atlantic Monthly article "The Natural. Why is Barack Obama generating more excitement among Democrats than John Kerry?"[14]
  • As the lead guest on Bob Schieffer's Face the Nation on CBS, the show began with:[15]

    SCHIEFFER: So we'll ask our guests, Senator Obama, and we must say Senator Obama is now being talked about as being kind of a rock star of Democratic politics. He's run a sensational race for the Democratic nomination for the Senate out here. And he has been chosen to give the keynote address. Do you feel any pressure?

Newross (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The last I'll say about this is, I thought we were writing an encyclopedia article, not a magazine article. If one person in this discussion can cite even one example of an encyclopedia article using such a term without it being a direct quote from a source, I'll completely cede the point. I don't think you'll find such an article, because that doesn't sound like encyclopedic language. UA 02:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO using a metaphor such as "landslide victory" doesn't seem encyclopedic either. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Newross, I acknowledge that the rising of Obama's star notably includes his primary and electoral wins. But as I pointed out, 2/3 of your usage references in your main post here are actually from the time after he was chosen in July to give the DNC keynote speech. Even in your response most recently above, your quoting of questions dated to July 25 and reference of then-yet-unpublished articles support my assertion, not your own, as of course the velocity of the rise in his "rock star" status had just been given the turbo boost of its first national evidence: the gathering decision and ultimate choice in July as the convention's keynote speaker. That trajectory would not have been spoken of so frequently in that period if Kerry had chosen Bill Richardson or Tom Vilsack, as you note having been on his short list, to give the keynote instead of Obama, and Obama had not had that opportunity to take the national stage.

I do have that timeline straight. My apologies for condensing the broader election cycle timeline in my statement—his progression to U.S. senator was a few months later, not two years later. Indeed, there are only 100 actively serving U.S. senators at a given moment, unlike the thousand-plus state senators; there are two major party nominees for each seat that is up, so that particular point of mine is diluted though not nullified. I also take your point that you are speaking about the article, not the lead, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand corrected on both points.

Obviously he was everything he was in either timeframe, and obviously the leap in going from state senator to U.S. senator is automatically a hugely significant one in notability, national relevancy and "stardom", so it's not that I'm disagreeing with you or your refs, nor would I object to the usage of the term where you suggest, I simply think it's more appropriate (and, again, supported by the refs) for the period a few months later, represented by the following paragraph in the bio, where it originally had been.

To Unitanode and Gordon Ecker (and Newross), and most relevant to the question posed in this RfC, am I also mistaken that Newross has correctly cited the Encyclopædia Brittanica as using the term "rising star"? After the two supportive replies following my post, the most recent two posts here completely ignore the bulk of Newross' statements above. Do the Encyclopædia Britannica articles of which Newross speaks cite quotes by others rather than using the language themselves? Could we get quotes featuring a couple of those usages to help us clarify the encyclopedic issue and make/revise our decisions here? Abrazame (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Obama's March 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party—as reported by news articles from March 17, 2004 to July 14, 2004.
• Obama being a rising star in the national Democratic Party led to his selection as Democratic National Convention keynote speaker—as reported by news articles from July 15, 2004 to July 27, 2004.
• If Obama had not been selected as DNC keynote speaker, the Atlantic Monthly would still have published Ryan Lizza's article "The Natural. Why is Barack Obama generating more excitement among Democrats than John Kerry?" (which does not mention the Democratic National Convention nor Obama's selection as its keynote speaker) on the first day of the Democratic National Convention on July 26, 2004.
• If Obama had not been selected as DNC keynote speaker, then like the other rising stars on the short list to be keynote speaker but who were not selected, he would have had another prime-time speaking role at the convention.
• If Jennifer Granholm had been selected as DNC keynote speaker over Obama instead of vice versa, Obama may have only appeared on one of five television network news Sunday morning talk shows (e.g. Bob Schieffer's Face the Nation on CBS).[16]
• Being selected as the keynote speaker of a national political party convention is an honor, but it doesn't make someone a political "rock star" if they are not already at least "rock star-esque":
  • Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). "Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7:

    Vying to become only the third African American elected to the U.S. Senate in the last 100 years, Obama has enjoyed mostly positive media coverage since his victory, with party leaders and pundits invariably dubbing him "a rising star." Last week, a CNN reporter dubbed Obama a "rock star-esque candidate."

Some professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles using the term "rising star":

• "Abu Abbas." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Abbas grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and, under the nom de guerre Abu Abbas, became a rising star in Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command, which was known for its daring, ruthless, and frequently disastrous attacks on Israel.

• "Jerry Bailey." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Bailey enjoyed considerable success around the country prior to establishing his presence as a rising star on the New York state circuit in 1982.

• "Anne Bracegirdle." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Bracegirdle retired at the height of her career, about 1707, when she began to be eclipsed by the rising star of Anne Oldfield.

• "Eric Cantor." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  After his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Cantor was considered a rising star among House Republicans; he became chief deputy whip of the Republican caucus after only two years.

• "history of Central Asia." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Furthermore, instead of seeking the assistance of petty eastern European princes, Tokhtamysh hitched his wagon to the rising star of Timur, with whose support he reasserted Mongol supremacy in Russia.

• "John Zachary DeLorean." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  A rising star in the automotive industry, DeLorean helped to revitalize Packard before leaving in 1956 to join General Motors.

• "Enrico Fermi." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  In 1929 Fermi, as Italy's first professor of theoretical physics and a rising star in European science, was named by Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini to his new Accademia d'Italia, a position that included a substantial salary (much larger than that for any ordinary university position), a uniform, and a title (“Excellency”).

• "Cathy Freeman." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Cathy Freeman's silver medal in the 400-metre run at the 1996 Games in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., introduced this rising star from Australia to the Olympic world.

• "Neil Gaiman." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  The work established them as rising stars in the comic world, and soon the two were noticed by publishers on both sides of the Atlantic.

• "Jan Lechoń." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Lechon was considered a rising star of new Polish poetry.

• "Brian Joseph Lenihan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Well regarded for his affable manner, he was seen as one of the rising stars of the Fianna Fail party, along with his ally Charles Haughey--later prime minister--whom he succeeded as minister of justice in 1964.

• "Peter Mandelson." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  He promoted Kinnock’s modernization agenda and ensured high media profiles for some of Labour’s rising stars, then in their 30s, such as Blair and Brown.

• "George Osborne." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Osborne entered Parliament in 2001, and he was quickly seen as a rising star.

  * "Najib Abdul Razak." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Early in his parliamentary career, Najib Razak smoothed relations between the government and the hereditary ruling class in the Pahang region, and he was seen as one of the rising stars within the United Malays National Organization (UMNO).

• "Rick Rubin." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  After hearing “It’s Yours,” Russell Simmons, who was already a rising star in the hip-hop scene, joined Rubin at Def Jam.

• "The U.S. 2002 Midterm Elections." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  At one point Republicans appeared poised to replace a rising Democratic star, Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who was admonished by his Senate colleagues following an ethics investigation into his campaign contributions and acceptance of personal gifts.

Re: landslide victory

• Multiple contemporaneous news articles described Obama's March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election win as a "landslide victory":
  • Fornek, Scott; Herguth, Robert C. (March 17, 2004). "Obama defeats Hull's millions, Hynes' name; Consistent effort results in landslide for Hyde Parker." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2:

    Maybe it wasn't such a bad ballot name after all. Barack Obama, who went from Hawaii to Harvard to Hyde Park, won a landslide victory in the Democratic primary Tuesday, bringing him one step closer to becoming the only African American in the U.S. Senate.

  • Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state." Chicago Tribune, p. 1:

    Barack Obama, an African-American state senator and former civil-rights lawyer from Hyde Park, won a landslide victory over six competitors Tuesday to assume the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, setting the stage for a crucial contest in November that could tip the balance of power in Congress. Obama, 42, whose initial campaign strategy was to build a coalition of blacks and liberal whites, instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party. He won over not only urban black voters, but also many suburban whites. With 89 percent of precincts reporting around the state, Obama led his next closest rival, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, by 54 percent of the vote to 23 percent, as expected strong support for Hynes from Chicago's Democratic machine failed to materialize.

  • Moe, Doug (March 18, 2004). "Tommy and Co. disliked paper." The Capital Times, p. 2A:

    Barack Obama, who won a landslide victory in Tuesday's Democratic U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, is "of counsel" with the law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland, which has offices in Chicago and Madison. Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and a highly-sought-after attorney upon graduating. He picked the Miner, Barnhill and Galland firm because of its strong reputation as a civil rights firm. "A spectacular guy," Chuck Barnhill said Wednesday of Obama, who, if elected, would be the third black ever to serve in the U.S. Senate. One of the others, Carol Moseley Braun, also was an attorney with the Miner, Barnhill firm.

  • Fornek, Scott (March 18, 2004). "Obama's appeal spans racial lines; Dem Senate candidate built diverse coalition on universal issues." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 9:

    He ran television commercials featuring images of white and black Democratic icons—from the late Sen. Paul Simon to the late Mayor Harold Washington. He built a coalition that spanned racial, ethnic and religious lines. He talked about issues with universal appeal to Democrats—from his opposition to the war in Iraq to his call to repeal President Bush's tax cuts. And he embraced his African-American heritage while reaching out to all voters. Those were the building blocks of Barack Obama s landslide victory in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. But the foundation was the candidate himself. The product of a racially mixed marriage, he had a stellar resume that includes a Harvard education, years of community activism and experience as a state senator from Hyde Park, factors that contributed to his ability to win votes across racial lines.

  • Polansek, Tom (March 18, 2004). "No rest for the winners; Obama, Ryan hit campaign trail after primary wins." The State Journal-Register, p. 7:

    In Tuesday's Democratic primary, Obama won a landslide victory with 53 percent of the vote in a field of seven candidates. On the Republican side, Ryan won 36 percent of the vote in an eight-way race.

  • Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. 4A:

    Three weeks ago, state Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be an also-ran among the eight Democrats running in Illinois for the nomination to an open U.S. Senate seat. Today, three days after his landslide victory in that crowded field, the self-described "skinny guy with the funny name" is the odds-on favorite to win in November and become the only African-American in the Senate and only the third black senator since Reconstruction. Partisans in Washington consider him a shooting star in the November elections. A few whisper about a presidential future.

  • Polansek, Tom (May 3, 2004). "Winning strategies differ among black politicians." The State Journal-Register, p. 1:

    Days after Barack Obama won a landslide victory in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, former Gov. Jim Edgar said skin color had ceased to be an issue in Illinois politics. Obama, an African-American state senator from Chicago, ran strong in white areas and beat opponent Dan Hynes in Hynes' own Chicago ward.

• The noun "landslide" is:
  • according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 171 years old and defined as:

    2a : a great majority of votes for one side
    2b : an overwhelming victory

• The term "landslide victory" is used in many professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles, including:
  • "Calvin Coolidge." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Running on the slogan “Keep Cool with Coolidge,” he won a landslide victory over conservative Democrat John W. Davis and Progressive Party candidate Robert La Follette, gaining about 54 percent of the popular vote to Davis's 29 percent and La Follette's nearly 17 percent; in the electoral college Coolidge received 382 votes to Davis's 136 and La Follette's 13.

  • "Dwight D. Eisenhower." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Democrats again selected Adlai E. Stevenson and named Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee as his running mate, but Eisenhower's great personal popularity turned the election into a landslide victory, the most one-sided race since 1936, as the Republican ticket garnered more than 57 percent of the popular vote and won the electoral vote 457 to 73.

  • "Indian National Congress." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Nevertheless, her New Congress Party scored a landslide victory in the 1971 elections, and for a period it was unclear which party was the true rightful heir of the Indian National Congress label.
    
    In the parliamentary elections held in March 1977, the opposition Janata Party scored a landslide victory over the Congress Party, winning 295 seats in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of India's Parliament) against 153 for the Congress; Gandhi herself lost to her Janata opponent.

  • "Labour Party." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    This “New Labour” agenda, combined with highly professionalized political marketing, produced a landslide victory in the general election of 1997, returning Labour to power after 18 years of Conservative Party rule and securing Tony Blair's appointment as prime minister.
    
    In 2001 the party won a second consecutive landslide victory, capturing a 167-seat majority—the largest-ever second-term majority for any party in the House of Commons.

  • "Richard M. Nixon." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Renominated with Agnew in 1972, Nixon defeated his Democratic challenger, liberal Sen. George S. McGovern, in one of the largest landslide victories in the history of American presidential elections: 46.7 million to 28.9 million in the popular vote and 520 to 17 in the electoral vote.

  • "Scotland." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    After Labour won a landslide victory in the general elections of May 1997—in which the Conservatives lost all their Scottish seats and the SNP took 6 seats in Parliament—the Labour government of Tony Blair called a referendum for establishing a Scottish Parliament with a broad range of powers, including control over the country's education and health systems.

  • "Margaret Thatcher." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Thatcher won election to a second term in a landslide—the biggest victory since Labour's great success in 1945—gaining a parliamentary majority of 144 with just over 42 percent of the vote.

Newross (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Newross (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And, I have undone it. You surely have the most words here about this subject, but you are the only one who feels the wording "rising start" is appropriate. The clear consensus is to leave the wording as it is, which is what my reversion has restored. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no clear consensus or justification whatsover for YOUR revert. Newross (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean other than all the discussion above?! I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about this; it's plain to see that you are the only one toting this wagon. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, several editors responded to the RFC in support of the wording "rising star". Tvoz/talk 03:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, both QueenofBattle and Newross are incorrect. Newross has clearly (and amply) presented the basis for "rising star" as encyclopedically appropriate wording, whether anybody wishes to acknowledge it or not. However, the longstanding use of the term in the article, as I indicated and defended as most appropriate, was in reference to his keynote address, and not where Newross has added it at the primary win. I realize there has been a lot of verbiage involved in this discussion but editors are quick to dismiss one or two points, as QueenofBattle's post of 25 October shows. I'm quite disappointed that nobody has weighed in on this since the most recent (1 November) spate of Newross' thorough research. When an editor so fully throws himself into tracking down watertight evidence supporting usage, etc., it should not simply go ignored for weeks. I would request that my own points also be adequately responded to. Abrazame (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should try to use more formal, less poetic language when it is practical. I'll bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On balance I would go with "landslide" but try to find more formal and precise ways to say "rising star" and "overnight". Though a metaphor, landslide is specialized and widely used term with respect to election results, and there is no better way to say it as far as I know. "Rising star" is almost always used imprecisely, and begs the question of what they are a star of. I'm surprised that Encyclopedia Brittanica uses it outside of the entertainment field (music, films, and perhaps sports) where it does serve as a specialized term. It can probably be said more precisely, e.g. that Obama was perceived within the Democratic Party as a viable / attractive future candidate for high office. "Overnight" is usually hyperbole should only be used if literally true; otherwise we should be more specific, e.g. "in the next several days" or "by the end of the week", etc. But even if true it sounds like hyperbole and we should use a term that makes it clear we mean it, e.g. "by the next morning". We source facts to reliable sources, not necessarily word choice and tone. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rising star which I have never considered to be slang. Newross's evidence clearly shows that this is true. The current version (using prominence) is incredibly awkward, and, as mentioned above, doesn't keep the integrity of the sourced material. Deserted Cities (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that it's informal speech that uses a metaphor that doesn't describe the situation completely or squarely - not that it's slang as such. A star is a stellar object in the night sky; a "rising star" by extension is a metaphor for something that, having appeared faintly on the horizon thereafter rises and thereby become more visible. In common speech a star is a person who has gained fame and adoration, not necessarily respect or power, among a wide part of the populace - without respect to their reputation among experts or insiders. The term is most commonly used to describe entertainment personalities so using it to describe politicians is a metaphor about a metaphor. To say that Obama became a star doesn't mean he became a real contender, or entered the corridors of power. It is to say that a large number of political non-insiders became fans. Is that specifically what we want to say about him, or could we describe it more precisely? Perhaps he did capture the popular imagination then. But he also showed himself to be an up-and-coming political candidate then, which is a somewhat different thing. Taking this back to entertainment, you might say that Sean Penn became a "rising star" after Fast Times at Ridgemont High. But you could not say that Mickey Rourke became a rising star after Diner (film) or Rumble Fish, even though among critics and film lovers that was a much more auspicious beginning. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The noun rising star may have arisen centuries ago as a metaphor, but according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, since 1767 it has been defined as:

a person or thing that is growing quickly in popularity or importance in a particular field <a rising star in politics>

and used this way in professionally-written encyclopedia articles.

Newross (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Much informal speech has old origins. "Rising star" is clearly colorful as opposed to precise language. That particular dicdef is not quite right, although "particular field" hints at the issue; there is a connotation of fandom and popular support with respect to a certain group, not importance as such. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to aid navigation

How about if everyone takes a look at the current text, which avoids the controversial and POV-ish term "rising star"? It seems to present the operative point in an encyclopedic manner. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Rising star" isn't controversial or POV-ish. Its a common term. So common, in fact that Encyclopedia Brittanica uses it, as do many newspapers, including one that specifically mention BHO. Deserted Cities (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Common? Perhaps given its use in EB. POV-ish? I think so given that one doesn't refer to another they may dislike as a "star". Controversial? Clearly so given the many, many paragraphs of text discussing it on this very talk page... QueenofBattle (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure, assuming you mean the following, I believe it is accurate, neutral, and well written:

... In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which quickly raised his prominence within the national Democratic Party, and started speculation about a presidential future. ...

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

QueenofBattle’s dislike of Obama is not a valid reason to remove a neutral, well-sourced, historically accurate description of Obama as a rising star in the national Democratic Party, which led to his selection to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

This narrowly framed RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article was initiated on October 22, 2009 by Jayron32
based on their unsubstantiated claim that "rising star" was slang or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles.
Both of these claims have been thoroughly refuted with extensive references to many dictionaries and many professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica article.

For seven months—from March 24, 2009 to October 21, 2009—this featured article said:

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

fully supported by a citation to these contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources:

• Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state". Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
• Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born." The New York Times, p. A20.
• Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. A04.
• Scheiber, Noam (May 31, 2004). "Race against history. Barack Obama's miraculous campaign." The New Republic, pp. 21–22, 24–26 (cover story).
  
• Finnegan, William (May 31, 2004). "The Candidate. How far can Barack Obama go?" The New Yorker, pp. 32–38.
• Dionne Jr., E. J. (June 25, 2004). "In Illinois, a star prepares." The Washington Post, p. A29.
• Mendell, David (2007). Obama: From Promise to Power New York: Amistad/HarperCollins. ISBN 0060858206, pp. 235–259.
  • p. 247: "Word of Obama's rising star was now extending beyond Illinois, spreading especially fast through influential Washington political circles like blue-chip law firms, party insiders, lobbying houses."
  • p. 268: "His campaign fund-raising was now moving at a furious pace and the buzz around him as a rising star was increasing by the hour."

This historically accurate, reliably sourced sentence should not have been revised, as it was, by Unitanode on October 21, 2009,
in response to 67.60.50.5's comment just 55 minutes earlier on October 21, 2009 that this article was Way too biased,
changing:

• "overnight" → "almost overnight" (changed by QueenofBattle on November 15, 2009 → "quickly")
  • this article should be historically accurate and follow the cited reliable sources and say "overnight".
    • Why be inaccurate and say "almost overnight" or vague and say "quickly"?
• "made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party" → "raised his prominence within the national Democratic Party"
  • this article should be historically accurate and follow the cited reliable sources and say "made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party".
    • What prominence in the national Democratic Party did Obama previously have that was raised?
    • Are "rising stars in the national Democratic Party" often selected to give the keynote address at Democratic National Conventions?
    • Or are "raised prominences within the national Democratic Party" often selected to give the keynote address at Democratic National Conventions?

Obama's rapid rise to national prominence in 2004:

• from February 2004 when he was in second place—and the least-known—of the five top Democratic U.S. Senate primary candidates in Illinois
• to December 2004 when he was on the cover of the year-end double issue of Newsweek as "Who's Next"—on the newsstand next to the year-end double issue of Time magazine with George W. Bush on the cover as Man of the Year

is one of the most important parts of his biography, and this article should be historically accurate and follow the best, contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources available.

Newross (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WTF?! "QueenofBattle’s dislike of Obama is not a valid reason to remove a neutral, well-sourced, historically accurate description..." Who in the hell said I disliked Obama? How about we stick to the article and shy away from trying to assess other editors' motivations? Hell, I wasn't even the latest to remove the term "rising star"! It's uncivil and just plain uncalled for. My opposition to the use of the term "rising star" is largely because it is unencylopedic opinion, despite the many, many (and many, many) paragraphs Newross has devoted to defending or somehow attempting to justify it. Clear evidence that there is controversy surrounding the use of such a term. We don't win any arguments around here by dumping our homework on the table and giving an A to the heaviest pile. Pursuasion, compromise and consensus is the trick; yes, I'm sure I've read that somewhere... QueenofBattle (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

About the rising star. I don't see how this term is POV or incorrect in anyway. For someone to go from a single parent home to being the first African-American President, if that isn't someone who could be described as a "rising star" than it would be incorrect to call Einstein a genius, the Pope Holy, or to say Google's a search giant. His opposition can label him a 'celebrity', but 'rising-star' is far-fetched? Oh yeah, I forgot, 'celebrity' is, apparently, derogatory. 174.0.198.29 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "genius" is a definitional term reserved for one with a very high IQ, while "holy" is a term for one who has been vested with certain religious trappings. "Rising star" and "giant" used as has been suggested are NPOV opinion, no matter how many times they are used in the press. QueenofBattle (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of offering any evidence whatsoever, QueenofBattle's arguments are:

• POV-ish? I think so given that one doesn't refer to another they may dislike as a "star".
• Who in the hell said I disliked Obama? How about we stick to the article and shy away from trying to assess other editors' motivations? It's uncivil and just plain uncalled for.
• My opposition to the use of the term "rising star" is largely because it is unencyclopedic opinion.
• We don't win any arguments around here by dumping our homework on the table and giving an A to the heaviest pile.

Newross (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, recall this article is on probation, so we should all try extra hard to WP:AGF, be WP:CIVIL, not turn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and, of course, WP:LSMFT. The latter being a humor injection attempt --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And, Newross, exactly what is your point? I've been subjected to an ad hominem attack from you for which civility demands an apology, and your response is to repeat my comments as though one cannot easily read them no more than an inch of computer screen above. Am I the only one who's trying to figure our what kind of goofy parallel universe we have fallen into here? The term rising star is of an unencyclopedic tone and it is opinion, hence its use is not appropriate here. How many different ways do I need to say that?! QueenofBattle (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Gosh, am I the only editor old and dumb enough to actually have smoked unfiltered Luckies?

• I completely agree that the accusation of QoB's political bias is unconstructive and unwarranted. Speculation of editors' motives is fruitless and generally "fighting words"; I'll also add that while I've not agreed with every edit QoB has made, I don't question that editor's scrupulous good faith.

• I also don't believe this (to me) minor issue of wording is worth the Sturm und drang. We've had more than one version of the text. The current text seems fine to me.

• I recognize that others haven't weighed in on this issue lately, but perhaps like me they thought it was already resolved? Or perhaps the issue isn't imprtant enough to bother?

Respectfully, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed alternate version

I don't really care if we go with rising star, but I think the current phrasing (as cited by 4wajzkd02 above) is too wordy and somewhat awkward. Is the following better:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide, finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points. The win drew the attention of Democrats nationwide, prompting speculation about a possible Presidential campaign.

I dropped victory after landslide because its redundant (you wouldn't say he won in an unexpected victory). I also think the part about finishing 29 points ahead is currently too long. And most relevant to the issue at hand, changed out the last phrase to a more conversational form. Deserted Cities (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also fine with this proposed wording (or something substantially similar to it). QueenofBattle (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Even better than the current version. I hope this issue can close soon. -4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objection to my version, I've switched it. This doesn't close the issue on using "rising star," etc. Deserted Cities (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing:

• "landslide victory" → "victory"
• "29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival" → "beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points"

is not a big deal; and hinges on whether you think "beating the runner-up" is more encyclopedic than "ahead of his nearest Democratic rival"; and whether you think reinforcing that the win was against Democratic primary opponents is helpful.

The purpose of the last half of the sentence (which Deserted Cities broke off into a second sentence) was to highlight that Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary election
made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party overnight and
started speculation about a presidential future overnight,
as supported by the cited best available contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources.

• Being a rising star in the national Democratic Party guaranteed him a speaking role at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and put him on the shortlist to be considered—along with other rising stars—as a possible keynote speaker.
• Speculation in the news media about a possible presidential future, begat more speculation in the news media about a possible presidential future:
  • in news profiles before his July 3, 2004 selection as convention keynote speaker
  • in news profiles after the July 15, 2004 announcement of him as convention keynote speaker
  • in news interviews at the convention before his July 27, 2004 keynote address
  • in news commentary after his July 27, 2004 keynote address

But Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary election did not:

• directly "draw the attention of Democrats nationwide"
• directly "prompt speculation about a possible Presidential campaign”

The sources for this sentence report (and emphasize the suddenness with which)
Obama's unexpected March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary landslide victory made him
overnight (i.e. on March 17, 2004) a rising star in the national Democratic Party
(which is responsible for planning the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating conventions) and
overnight (i.e. on March 17, 2004) started speculation about a presidential future:

• Brown, Mark (March 17, 2004). Voters warmed to Obama, the next hot politician. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2:

  Obama has the potential to be the most significant political figure Illinois has sent to Washington since Abraham Lincoln.
  
  If he is elected in November, Obama will immediately replace Colin Powell as the person most talked about to be the first African-American elected president of the United States. That's a heavy load to put on any 42-year-old. Everybody who goes to the U.S. Senate thinks he's going to be president someday. Obama is one of the handful who really could be.

The sources for this sentence report Obama becoming a rising star "in the national Democratic Party"—
not "among Democrats nationwide":

• Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7:

  To some degree, the numbers mirror the primary results. Obama, 42, a state senator from Hyde Park, won a majority of 53 percent against six Democrats, while Ryan, 44, a Wilmette investment banker-turned-schoolteacher, won his eight-way nominating contest with a plurality of 36 percent.
  
  Vying to become only the third African American elected to the U.S. Senate in the last 100 years, Obama has enjoyed mostly positive media coverage since his victory, with party leaders and pundits invariably dubbing him "a rising star." Last week, a CNN reporter dubbed Obama a "rock star-esque candidate."

I propose restoring the historically accurate, fully sourced sentence that was stable in this featured article for seven months—
from March 24, 2009 to October 21, 2009—prior to changes by:
Unitanode on October 21, 2009, QueenofBattle on November 15, 2009, and Deserted Cities on November 16, 2009
but making "national Democratic Party" wikilink to: Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Current_structure_and_composition
to make it crystal clear that Obama:

• was only a "rising star" in the national Democratic Party
• was not a "rising star" among Democrats nationwide
• was not a "rising star" to the public at large
• was not a "rising star" to those who dislike Obama:

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

Newross (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal rejected. As you note, several editors have made edits to bring us to this point. Edits that have generally been met by acceptance in the spirit of collaboration by almost everyone except you, who seems to be failing to get the point. The current text is fine and reflects much consensus on this point. Enough is enough. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Or:

• retain the opening of Deserted Cities' November 16, 2009 revision:

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide, finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points. The win drew the attention of Democrats nationwide, prompting speculation about a possible Presidential campaign.

• make the election results parenthetical with em dashes,
• change "and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points" → "29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up"
• restore the closing of Newross' March 24, 2009 revision that accurately reflects the cited sources
  and was stable in this featured article for seven months until October 21, 2009:

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

• change "in the national Democratic Party" → "within the national Democratic Party
  (the national attention mentioned in the cited sources was from leaders of the national Democratic Party, specifically: presumptive U.S. Presidential nominee John Kerry, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Terry McAuliffe, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) chairman Jon Corzine):

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide—finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up—which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, still rejected. You haven't addressed the concerns of any of the other editors, you have merely restated your arguments. You have offered no collaboration, no compromise, no nothing. Until you do, we are going to have a real tough time moving forward on this. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No information about accusations

Close per FAQs Q7, Q8 and Q13
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why isn't it more information about him being accused/labeled as a socialist??? --TIAYN (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Because this is an encyclopedia, not a forum in which to air fringe right-wing criticism? Tarc (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Tarc, why did you label (and archive) the above question (about content) as being a forum discussion? Perhaps I am missing something in the above question, but it's probably best to let the robot archive discussions. Plus, using a hat for two lines seems senseless, but maybe I'm wrong. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Forum-like or otherwise non-productive discussions are properly hidden (not archived, that is a separate function) to prevent further clutter. It is bad form to remove hat/hab tags. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment hits 10.2%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should add at the end of economic management:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too many hats

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

Close per nothing to do about the Obama article, should be in the talk page of the talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some editor are getting a bit overzealous about closing sections with {hat} tags. This talk page certainly does attract more than its share of silly off-topic ranting about matters that really, really don't relate to any conceivable change to the article. So folding those away has a good point. But it's really gone too far lately. A number of threads that merely probably won't lead to any content change in the article are being folded away... even though their proposals (even if proper to reject) do propose article changes. Mere lack of eloquence or perfect clarity on the part of the editor who starts a thread shouldn't result in a fold if there seems to be a salvageable suggestion for an edit in there (that might be better argued by someone else downthread). LotLE×talk 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I have brought the issue up at WP:AN#Question --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the kindly worded comment. I thought I'd been careful to leave open those that had some possibility of progress for the article or still had some productive life in the discussions. However, your comment indicates lack of consensus on the process I employed. I'll turn my {hat} tag vernier down a couple of notches. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC) It would probably be best if you undid all the hats you've done above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I disagree. I stand by the actions I took as being compliant with the FAQ. The intent of closure is to reduce clutter (of which there is quite a bit here), not inhibit discussion of changes to the article. As I noted in my comment on your Talk page, if editors have article changes they'd like to make, they should discuss it here (with some specificity, vice "look what's in the news today"), or be WP:BOLD and make and edit. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Look at the hook above, you personally attack the editor and close it. This is inappropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I beg your pardon, if you are referring to me, I am confused. Which editor did I attack? I certainly meant no such thing (and, despite the misunderstandings that text-only can entail), don't see that I've violated WP:NPA in any way. However, I'm paying attention - would you please point out how? As an additional note, FAQ 13 is supposed to reduce WP:DRAMA, not feed it, which is why I see LotLE's point. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Do not make remarks such as "It is interesting how many eastern European IPs, such as this one from Hungaria, seem fascinated by U.S. political articles and are anxious to keep them up to date with the latest criticism." You're getting a little extreme on this page. We don't need police officers. Let the threads resolve themselves, if they are blatantly malicious, then remove them, but that is not the case above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, if that's what you mean by "the hook above", apologies that I did not understand your reference. I don't see that as a personal attack, in letter or spirit, of WP:NPA. Your interpretation of FAQ 13 stands in contrast to my reading of it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and not continue this discussion here, as it is unrelated to article improvements. Best, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with closing up obviously pointless, POV-pushing topics, especially ones that have come up repeatedly in the past or ones that can be answered in the FAQ. Tarc (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) FWIW, I do not think any of the recently folded topics particularly deserve to lead to any changes in the article. And I am absolutely certain that the editors placing the hats did so in the utmost good faith. I don't want to quibble about one particular heading or another, I just think it might be best if the "hat trigger threshold" was reduced in sensitivity a bit. LotLE×talk 03:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I support all of the added hats that I have reviewed. Too much foruming, not enough article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Sure, but at a minimum can we please agree that edit summaries and closing comments should be reasonably neutral and respectful? That means they're more likely to stand, and the editors participating in the now-hidden chatter don't feel like they're being scolded. That will help keep things moving. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Proposed Closure reasons: "Hatting" based on the FAQs is the most straight forward (e.g., "Close per FAQ Q1", etc.) "Closed - Resolved" also non-argumentative (e.g., an issue is raised, and it is addressed). I wish we had FAQ entries for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTAFORUM, as these are pretty common types of talk discussions that most often up leading nowhere. Lacking that, I think "Close - WP:NOTNEWS" and "Close - WP:NOTAFORUM" are also reasonable - but need time for consensus to build. Thoughts? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Those look good. I'm not sure it's necessary to restate talk page guidelines as part of the FAQ, but it wouldn't hurt to refer to them somehow. For some of the more off topic, forum-ish, or flame-fest threads I've sometimes made hat comments like "close discussion not reasonably related to proposed improvements in the article" or "archive discussion unlikely to lead to change in the article". Usually it's best to give good faith and new editors (about whom good faith is generally presumed) a little extra courtesy so they know they're being taken seriously, so I would in most cases give a serious response and let it sit for a day, unless it gets out of hand as in these edits.[17][18][19] - Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Clear WP:3RR violation - 4 reverts today: [20],[21], [22], [23].--4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring in contradiction of the FAQ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject of leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health-H1N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

What 2007?[24] PhGustaf (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mention of Obama-Antichrist conspiracy

Close WP:FRINGE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know it sounds stupid, but I think the belief that Obama is the Antichrist warrants a mention, or perhaps a seperate page. Their are thousands of people who truly believe this and it deserves a mention. Some mention should also be made with Obama's supposed connection with the end of the world in 2012. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coach John McQuirk (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure this article would be the one (perhaps there's a better one that exists?). Are there WP:RS that refer to this controversy? Even then, in whatever article, I'm pretty sure it would be WP:FRINGE and thus inappropriate. Take a look at the linked guidelines and see what you think. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Yes, there are reliable sources 4wajzkd02, the main one being THE BIBLE. I think it deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coach John McQuirk (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Foreign policy updates

The section needs updating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion? How about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birth Certificate?

Closed, resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What about a discussion regarding Obama's failaure to produce a certified, original copy of his birth certificate? Medical Records? Anything? Ricky7877 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC) See the FAQ at the top of this page.Ronabop (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Specifically see Q5 on the FAQ, as well as the article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.--JayJasper (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Stimulus kicks in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The subhead of that article states "The U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5% annual pace in the third quarter, as massive government stimulus helped drag the economy out of the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s, the Commerce Department estimated Thursday."[25]

The first sentence of the actual article is "Along with improvements in key monthly figures on output and sales, the rise in real gross domestic product means the Great Recession is likely over in a technical sense, even as further job losses occur."[26]

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

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

Since you have opened the door to discussion of your POV, I would contrast your statement "the article actually states that the cash-for-clunkers program was largely responsible for 3Q growth" with the article's own text, "Growth was broad-based in the third quarter, with final U.S. sales rising at a 3% annual pace, the fastest in more than three years. Third-quarter growth was due to higher consumer spending, a slowdown in the reduction of inventories, an increase in residential investments, and robust government spending. Home building contributed to growth for the first time in nearly four years."[27]

While the article notes that "Spending on durable goods surged 22.3%, the most in eight years. The government's cash for clunkers program boosted auto sales. Most of the clunker sales came out of inventories, but production of vehicles rebounded smartly after a sharp pullback earlier in the year. Motor vehicle production contributed 1.7 percentage points to growth, nearly half of the total GDP increase,"[28] the article also states that "Most economists don't expect the economy to grow quite as much in coming quarters, but they aren't forecasting a double-dip recession, either. Most see growth in the 2% to 3.5% range. The adjustment in inventories could add to growth for several more quarters."[29]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automobile or Car.

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

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

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

• "auto accident": 916,000 results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No mention of ACORN?

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Job Approval Down to 49%

read: http://www.gallup.com/poll/122627/Obama-Job-Approval-Down-49.aspx "The latest Gallup Daily tracking results show 49% of Americans approving of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, putting him below the majority approval level for the first time in his presidency."

Quite remarkable to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.244.34 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a good article for this information, and it is --> over there. LotLE×talk 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This has already been included in the Presidency of Barack Obama article, where it is relevant. BLPs are about someone's life, not necessarily what happens during their presidency.