Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

New Party

(ADDED LATER: all below re New Party (United States), one of many worldwide 'new party' articles Cramyourspam (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC))

Does a subarticle to this main blp mention Obama's (admitted "informal-") affiliation therewith?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to this. SMP0328. (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think so it is clear he was a member 22:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.207.49 (talk)

Is National Review really an ideal, trustworthy, impartial, independent source of information on a Democratic Party candidate for President? HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't using it as a source, only as a way to read the article I believe Hodgdon was referencing. SMP0328. (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed. Absolutely zero mainstream media coverage, as befitting anything written by Kurtz. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you read Ben Smith's coverage in Buzzfeed? His article (co-written with Rosie Gray) also provides a Scribd archive of the New Party (NP) Chicago meeting minutes in question. These minutes record that Barack Obama sought the NP's endorsement, joined the NP, and signed the NP "Candidate Contract". Ben Smith has been cautiously willing to contradict the Obama campaign's 2008 response to Kurtz's NP claims. Wookian (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Scjessey, why did you say there was zero mainstream media coverage without, it seems like even looking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.124.207 (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ROFL. You're saying that BuzzFeed is mainstream media coverage? Why not Twitter? Or the guys at the bar? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The National Review article is already mainstream on its own. The usefulness of Smith's Buzzfeed article is that it's an acknowledgement from a politically hostile author of Kurtz's research. The Washington Post's think tank blog similarly acknowledged Kurtz's research. You should, too. Wookian (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to the original question, the subject is mentioned at Stanley Kurtz, and is under discussion at Talk:New Party (United States) where it would be most relevant if included. I just removed it from Danny K. Davis, as it is not terribly pertinent to that article and was stated as fact there without adequate sourcing. As far as google knows, that's the extent of it. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be more relevant in the New Party article than here? If Obama sought endorsement from the NP, joined the NP, and signed the NP Candidate Contract, that is very interesting and notable information that provides insight into Obama's views in the 1990's. One thing to keep in mind is that the Obama campaign has a very strong interest in silencing this information. Editors should be careful not to censor this for political reasons. At this point I suggest that it requires a conspiracy theory to believe that Obama did NOT seek the endorsement of the NP. What do you think? Wookian (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What? That's a giant leap of a biased conclusion. Especially with everyone involved in that short-lived party denying it ever happened. Even if it were true(and that's a big if, everything I've read has all identified sources denying it), it's a blip on the radar and shouldn't even be considered here. This is nothing. Dave Dial (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There are three assertions Kurtz makes from the meeting minutes that can be dealt with separately. First, that Obama joined the NP. Ben Smith pooh-pooh's this because people he talked to don't remember it, and sort of sluffs over the contradicting meeting minutes and other sources by pointing out that the NP was disorganized. OK. But second -- both the meeting minutes and also the NP member(s) Smith personally interviewed AFFIRMED that Obama asked for the NP endorsement. This contradicts Obama's campaign's claims in 2008. Third, Kurtz and Smith show that the meeting minutes record that Obama signed the "candidate contract". This material is doublely notable, because not only does it provide insight into Obama's political activities from the 90's, but it also is a bit of a scandal. As pointed out by (political opposites) Kurtz and Smith, Obama's campaign apparently covered up and denied facts from his past political activities. So, no, this is not "nothing". Wookian (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's reasonable to answer the original question as a courtesy, as many people come to this page earnestly wondering about this or that and we can direct them to the right sub-article. But indeed, there's no reasonable chance that it's suitable for this main article at this time given current sourcing. Not by a few orders of magnitude. Nearly every fact in the article has hundreds or thousands of mainstream sources supporting that it's true, and significant. This has zero as to truth, and only a couple including Ben Smith that even note that the claim has been made. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, it could well be true but just not something that the mainstream press considers significant enough to cover. There's a reason why this gets covered in Politico but not mass market press. Ben Smith is a politics junkie writing for other politics junkies, he's covered all the major Obama conspiracy theories. His taking an interest might establish that an issue is noteworthy enough to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. Or it might not. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon, I disagree with your assertion that this subject i most relevant at New Party (United States). This is most relevent here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.69 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Whoever is operating the IP immediately above has taken to hassling me on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Section

I removed the section "raised Muslim" because Obama senior was a muslim until six years old. I dont see why his religous beliefs at the age of infancy to 5 should be relevant. People generally do not hold concrete belief systems at the age of 5. Pass a Method talk 08:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Good remove. HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. Even if it had any value, it would be in the article about Obama's father. Presumably this is just about linking Obama to Islam. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm the one who reverted the edit, I won't argue with it now. Pass a Method, HiLo and Scjessey all make excellent points. In all honesty, I already knew the role of Islam in Barack Sr.'s life was trivial at best, but I didn't know he stopped practicing the religion that early (and when you're that young, you don't "practice" a religion so much as you go along with the rest of the family/community). szyslak (t) 13:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote used: "American President: Barack Obama". Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. 2009. http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/obama. Retrieved January 23, 2009. "Religion: Christian" --

However he is now an Messianic (He likes to speack about participating with his kids to a Messianic rabi to bless them with the blessing from Numbers chapter 6). So I agree the quote is good since "Christian" have same meaning with "Messianic", but the movement is not same as "Christianity" like in the above table, but "Messianism" in one word, or "Hebrew Roots" in two words. --FlorinCB (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with not emphasizing Obama Sr.'s Muslim roots here, especially because BO Sr. was basically an absentee father with no direct influence on BO's upbringing. There is probably a place for tasteful mention of the Muslim influences on BO's personal development, but I would suggest that it be centered on his experiences in Indonesia, where as a child he was pretty much "along for the ride" in a Muslim majority culture. A good link for this might be Nicholas Kristoff's interview. Wookian (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this too - this does not belong here, and the way we handle it in Sr. works for that article. Tvoz/talk 15:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2012

In the opening paragraph Obama is referred to as African-American. It would be more accurate to describe him as biracial. 75.75.169.134 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done See FAQ question 2 on this page. Thanks for your suggestion, though. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is African American a correct description?

See FAQ, Q2
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
His father was Kenyan and met his very anglo wife whilst studying in the United States which makes him a mulatto, not an African-American culturally speaking or genetically speaking. There is no shame in being a mulatto, but he is not of the majority of the African-American community that are of slave stock mixed with anglo blood to more or less degree. Pretty much apples and oranges as to culture and histories. Abraham Lincoln never made a speech to free Kenyans that weren't slaves born in the 20th century. Why would it be wrong to state that he is/was the first mulatto US president if you are going to make race an issue in his election? By any reasonable reckoning, he and Malcolm X have nothing politically, economically, culturally, and not a lot genetically in common. His mom was white as white can be and he was raised in a very privledged environment by his mother's family. Snoop Dogg--African-American. Obama--Privledged mulatto. 12.207.42.206 (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC) See section right above this one. --NeilN talk to me 03:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC) The only way that we would be able not to use African American would be if multiple reliable sources stop referring to him as such and that is not even close to happening. Also, the term Mulatto has been considered offensive for years so there is no chance of that term being used. Finally the suggestion that Obama is not African American because he is of different he is to Malcom X is silly because it would be like saying that Ronald Regan is not Caucasian because he is not like Ozzy Osbourne. There is no rule that only people raised in certain environments can be called African American that I know of.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I lived in Silver Spring and DC for a number of years. The Africans and Carribeans I knew and lived amongst didn't find much if any common ground with African-Americans. I realize he partially got elected on being a "people of color" but there's a big difference between descendants of Georgia slave families and a Kenyan-American-Anglo fathered mullato with a wife as white as can be being made part of the African-American landscape. I also don't see how mulatto is an obscene term any more than mestizo. Mixed breeds are mixed breeds. He's a mutt like most of us and he very much is not a result of the machinations and slavery that brought a large portion of the people of African heritage to the United States CENTURIES before he was born. I'm a mutt. I'll say it on this wiki talk page. He's a mutt, too, but he's not of the same cloth of a Malcolm X or MLK and saying he's an "African-American" tends to imply that he is. He wasn't even involved in that struggle to amount to anything. Rich kid born in Hawaii doesn't equate to former slaves that were sharecroppers in Mississippi. What's so offensive about using a perfectly correct term like Mulatto? Friend lives in SF and they often elect people from the GLBT who don't call themselves "Southern Baptists", as they aren't. What's wrong with honesty? Much of his upbringing was not in the US and his upbringing in the US was much closer to a privledged white child, due to his parentage on his mother's side, than anything to do with being Kenyan or Marching for Civil Rights. Those are all facts I don't have to cite, as you know they are facts, so why lump him in with Muddy Waters when a rational person would lump him in with somebody with rich parents and got a pass on a lot of things like GW Bush? If you find mulatto offensive, how about "person of color" or "mixed race". They seem quite popular in the media and I have yet to see your "reliable sources" that insist on claiming a person to be something they are not. When I play my violin I don't call it a cello. When I listen to Bird, I don't call him Peter Frampton. Dictionaries aren't just for old folks and wikipedia has some flaws. That doesn't excuse intentionally mis-labeling a person's heritage.12.207.42.206 (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

PPACA

I've just rolled back these edits because they were neither neutral nor accurate. Nor were the edits supported by the source. User:Difu Wu appears confused by what the individual mandate is. It is the requirement that people get insurance, not the penalty imposed for a failure to do so. Difu Wu's edits conflate these two things. Furthermore, stuff like "coercing States to enforce the law by threatening to take away..." is clearly non-neutral. This is complicated stuff, and it is important that we get the wording absolutely right and neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Difu Wu has re-reverted without making any attempt to discuss it here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My edits are correct on the position of the Supreme Court, straight from the slip opinion. Only two provisions of the PPACA are directly challenged and addressed by the court: the individual mandate (that all Americans must buy health insurance or pay a penalty) and the Medicaid expansion provision (that a State failing to comply with the PPACA will lose all federal Medicaid funds). The Supreme Court decided that the PPACA is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. It ruled 5-4 that the individual mandate is consititutional under Congress's power to "lay and collect taxes", and ruled 7-2 that the Medicaid expansion is unconstitutional and exceeded Congress's authority under the Spending Clause. My wordings is adopted directed from the court's slip opinion, including words like "coerce" (see pg 45 of the Court's opinion for example). My edit is neutral and strictly the court's opinion. Difu Wu (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The latest version is much better, because it loses the non-neutral language you describe above. The problem with your original approach is that you used Wikipedia's voice to says States were being coerced and threatened, rather than directly attributing the language (with quotation marks and cites) to the Court. But your recent edits remove the need for that and are a significant improvement. Well done. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I am glad we are able to agree upon an acceptable version that summarizes the Court's decision on the PPACA.Difu Wu (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the case. Although the 2nd attempt was better, it was still sythesis. The last portion of the wording in particular is the opinion of Difu Wu's reading of an original document. The USSC most definitely did not state what you are claiming(referring the Medicaid expansion). It's far more complicated than that and to include your claims would need firstly a RS to confirm, and then more explanation. Which would fit better in the PPA article than here. Dave Dial (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Washington Post reference and only sourcing directly from the Court's slip op, so it is not sythesis. The Court only ruled on the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion provisions, not the whole law. My edit accurately summarizes the Court's finding. Those who need more explanation can click on the link to the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius article or go to the reference of the slip opinion. Difu Wu (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that actually makes your edits MORE original research and synthesis. We don't need your interpretation of what the court decided here. You don't understand that? Also, this article(along with all Obama related articles) are under article probation and have a 1RR restriction. Which you are currently in violation of. I will allow you to self revert and gain Talk page consensus for your edits, and not report the violation. But you have to self-revert. Dave Dial (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have now reverted my edit due to 1RR restriction. I must emphasize that my edits reflects the Court's opinion as quoted in the references to the slip opinion, not my interpretation thereof. Please comment on the merits of my edit here], which better reflects the Court's ruling on PPACA. Thanks. Difu Wu (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the self-revert. I'm going to list my objections more clearly now. The USSC didn't rule that monies couldn't be withheld from States for the Medicaid expansion, they ruled they could not withhold monies already designated currently to the States as a penalty for not expanding Medicaid. That doesn't preclude the Government from denying State's that don't comply any new monies, nor does it preclude further sanctions if States don't adhere to standards already in place. In any case, one would need a reliable source to add any of that. Neither your reading of the court papers or mine is acceptable. Thanks again, Dave Dial (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. My edit says "withholding existing Medicaid funding from States for failure to comply in the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional", which is basically the same as the actual words used in the USSC's slip op on page 4: "the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion", and my edit is clearly referenced. Would you rather prefer using the USSC's verbatim wordings instead and putting them in quotes? Difu Wu (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be preferable if you used at least one secondary source describing the action. Since the WaPo is already being referenced, if you can find something referring to the clause, include that. But make it more neutral. Such as stating that -Congress cannot take away existing Medicaid funds to penalize States for not participating in the expansion, but is free to apply new penalties, such as withholding new monies associated with the expansion-. This is going to be my last post for awhile. Medication....Have a good day. Dave Dial (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it better to quote directly from the USSC, rather than use secondary sources that might be biased? If no further objections, let's reinstate my edit but use the direct quote from the USSC with reference. The current version suggests that the USSC declared the whole law constitutional, which is not exactly correct. The USSC considered only the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion provisions: the former it declared constitutional, the latter unconstitutional. Difu Wu (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guy, you don't seem to get the gist of WP:original research. We can't have you selectively citing portions of an original document to show conclusions. This isn't WikiHow where contributions from editors that are deemed knowledgeable in certain areas are encouraged to do the types of things you seem to believe are allowed here. It wouldn't matter if you were a judge of 30 years, using original documents and selecting portions of them to place into articles is still OR. Using a secondary source to describe the courts actions is demanded. Not to mention that your conclusions are incorrect and your "personal opinion" wrong. You don't get to bypass the reliable sources and come to your own conclusions. The fact is, the law goes into effect and has been rule Constitutional. Those are the overwhelming conclusions being written about by non-biased reliable sources. Your own interpretation cannot be included in this article by original research or synthesis. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:original research: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." The Supreme Court's slip opinion is a reliable, published source. Quoting directly from it is not OR. As for synthesis, that policy says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Quoting directly from the source is emphatically not reaching or implying any conclusion at all. Difu Wu (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You needed to keep reading through the guideline. Quote: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.... Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy." -end quote. In other words, your opinion that "The current version suggests that the USSC declared the whole law constitutional, which is not exactly correct. The USSC considered only the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion provisions: the former it declared constitutional, the latter unconstitutional", has to be backed up by a secondary source, not you linking to the USSC and making conclusions based on the decision. The facts are, the decision is more complex than you are stating. The majority of reliable sources to date have stated the law was ruled Constitutional, with one caveat to the Medicare expansion. It most definitely did not rule the expansion was illegal, it did strike the penalty for not complying as too harsh and not constitutional. Which does not preclude other penalties or sanctions for noncompliance. For this article, a short summary of the decision is relevant, and the vast majority of reliable sources have pointed to the USSC decision as upholding the law as Constitutional. The minutia is better explained in the act and decision articles. Use a secondary source, and make the wording neutral based on the secondary sources conclusions. There are many out there. The WaPo that is in the article already, the NYT has several. Thanks Dave Dial (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Question for anyone who may have an answer..............

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why is President Obama constantly referred to as "the first African American to hold the office"? i am not being disrespectful so please do not take this as such. my granddaughter is mixed and her birth certificate says she is white. we were told that the race is determined by the race of the mother. is this something new? or possibly only in effect in VA? just curious Kathi137 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see Q2 on the FAQ. Note also that the term African American refers mainly to ancestry rather than race.--JayJasper (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And the difference between ancestry and race is? HiLo48 (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Race" is an invention, a function of the perception of the observer. Ancestry is a function of facts (Yitzak begat Phineas begat Herbert begat Edwin begat Josh.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:FORUM (again)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wiki editors have deemed him "African-American" in spite of him being "biracial" or whatever more accurate term you might wish to put in it's place, and you will not get anywhere trying to change their views. Kenya is on the Africa Continent and so is Libya (Citation-ANY MAP OF THE PLANET EARTH WITH CURRENT POLITICAL BOUNDARIES). A Kenyan/Anglo ancestry in the wikipedia apparently means African-American. I'd be curious if I should start to call the Libyan naturalized citizen that owns a restaurant in town and has an Anglo wife and mixed children's family "African-American". I think he would be amused and consider it wrong as they are culturally very different, just as many Africans in Africa don't think of tourists that are "people of color with African ancestry" from the USA as African. I personally spent a significant period of time in Sub-Saharan Africa and it often shocked "African-American" tourists when they were generally not at all thought of by indigenous Africans as African. Anyway, according to the powers that be, it's not worth bothering arguing with them. They just told me so above. Arguing with determined "pro" wiki editors, especially if they have all decided something collectively, correctly or not according to outside opinions, even on talk pages, isn't worth the bother. Right or wrong, it has been decided that Barry is an "African-American" and so it shall stay stated as such on this page. Editors made a questionable decision to many of us, but they have the upper hand, as if you disagree with them too much, they will try to block your IP from even saying things on talk pages. No real point in arguing, all downside and no upside to it. I don't think he's "African-American" culturally, which is a view shared by many, probably even himself. Kenyan Father. White Mother. No slave or sharecropper history. Raised outside of the country and on Hawaii which is pretty far outside the country for most "African-Americans" that aren't in the military. Hawaii: Population 1.3 million as of recent census (from anecdotal experience as a middle aged USAF brat, I'd say most of the following are US Military), 1.6% Black or African American according to WIKIPEDIA. Note usage of "Black or African American" and "23.6% from Two or More Races". Current wikipedia page. So on the page for Barry's birth he is of two or more races, in spite of ""Race" is an invention, a function of the perception of the observer. Ancestry is a function of facts (Yitzak begat Phineas begat Herbert begat Edwin begat Josh.) --jpgordon", but on his bio page he is African American. Guess y'all better fix the US census mechanism and at least the Hawaii wiki page, except you don't know what "two or more races" are in this instance, do you? But since Obama's dad was a BLACK Kenyan national (and there are plenty of White Kenyans and White Africans), that makes him black in spite of his mom being as white as a ghost in the photographs I've seen, and therefore instead of being bi-racial he's "African-American". Interesting rabbit hole you created for yourself with your statements. Part of my ancestral and current family are/were white people in Africa for centuries. I wouldn't call the ones that moved here "African-American" but one of my cousins checked that on a lot of forms and probably still does, being as he was born in Africa and lives in the USA. His direct ancestors have been in Africa for centuries. Since race is just a perception, then he's "African-American", even though he has blonde hair, blue eyes, and is of Dutch, English, and Swiss heritage, right? Nice big rabbit hole you got yourselves there. 12.207.42.206 (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC) What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I think what is being asked is to remove Afriacn American due to the users above thinking it is wrong. I think thought that the request can be safely ignored. The users main argument is that he can't be considered African American due to the fact that he is a rich kid from Hawaii and not a decendent of slaves, a claim that has not been supported by any reliable sources no anyone else in the discussion in question. On the other hand the current use of African American has been supported by multiple reiable sources as well as Obama himself and it will take a lot more than the personal opinion of someone from Wikipedia to change. The other argument is andonital evidence where the user above mentions that people from Sub-Saharan Africa don't consider "African-Americans" to be African, however this is unsourced and clearly can't be used.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Where is the official definition of African American that says it means "descended from black slaves from a particular part of Africa" (and probably a fair sprinkling of white European slave owners who took their pleasures according to their whims)? HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Height stats

How tall is Barack Obama? There are no height stats in the infobox. 24.146.222.131 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also no reference in the Infobox to his weight. Nor should there be. Both are trivial. With that said, just to be clear, thank you for your suggestion. SMP0328. (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire, it's very important to be tall for a president. Women dislike the shorter men. 24.146.222.131 (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and being attractive to women is the most important qualification for the presidency. Unless the candidate is a woman, of course, or is that not possible in your worldview? Tvoz/talk 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Statistically, tall men are more likely to get promoted to higher level management positions and earn more over their lifetime. In a campaign for president, everything matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.193.224 (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Try Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.145.197 (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Restaurant owner dies shortly after meeting Obama

Not a common story. Should be mentioned in the article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/06/ohio-restaurant-owner-dies-shortly-after-meeting-obama/ And some pictures: http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/akron-restaurant-owner-dies-hours-after-meeting-obama-1.318595?ot=akron.PhotoGalleryLayout.ot&s=1.318594 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.120.163.57 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Only if we were Fox News. Which we're not. Thank &deity. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't get too far ahead of yourself. I'm sure that in an hour there will be a reliably cited article written with tons of citations. Which will then get a PROD banner, which will then be removed. Then the article will get nominated for deletion, where dozens of fly by readers will flock to the deletion discussion "voting" KEEP, KEEP, KEEP. Only after week passes and nerves are shot, after egos get bruised and feelings get hurt, will the article become part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. (Stop me if you've heard this one before).--JOJ ^Hutton 21:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's see: Well-sourced, definitely notable . . . if this was about Romney the article would already be written. 72Dino (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama's fatal restaurant visit controversy ? Tarc (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Barack Obama's fatal restaurant visit conspiracy theory.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's even better. 72Dino (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to be "fair and balanced", we will need List of restaurants where Barack Obama has eaten and the owners are still alive. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This unfortunate lady's story is a great topic for an "odd news" article, but doesn't seem like a good fit for notability within Obama's article on Wikipedia. That's not to say it couldn't fit in anywhere. If there was an article discussing heart disease and quoting an expert who used this incident as an example, that could be very appropriate and useful. Wookian (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

We're not going to name-drop this into heart disease or similar, that's just ridiculous piling-on because of the president's visit. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps my intent wasn't clear. If it was added to a heart disease related topic, it should happen organically and because a quoted expert thinks its a good and educational example of a medical phenomenon, not driven by the news cycle just for the sake of tying it to Obama's name. Wookian (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama on Twitter

This article is nominated for deletion, and I wonder if there is a valuable information to combine and to save. This article discusses Obama's use of Twitter, and there are some interesting facts, like popularity, violating Obama's account rights, and exploiting Twitter account for political campaign use. --George Ho (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to discuss information to combine and save if the article itself ends up being kept. You should probably wait until the AfD is over. Silverseren^C 06:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Why waiting until AFD is over? Even if kept, there is no reason to force readers into searching for a subarticle. In fact, inclusion of a summary about a subtopic helps readers decide whether to read more or to learn enough without reading further. --George Ho (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a trivialism vis-a-vis the life and times of the President, not terribly relevant or significant to the subject of this article, whatever the status of that particular article. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave this here. Silverseren^C 08:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The history of Obama's Twitter use is good for a book, but not the encyclopedia article itself, unless relevant for the main article. --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're not combining then, but making a summary section. And, yeah, that makes sense to do. It should be rather similar to the current lede to the article (just rewritten so it's not the exact same). Silverseren^C 08:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

... The article lede is bad as a summary. I guess find something that is prominent as part of a section of a subtopic then? --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

May I add back {{summarize}}, please? Other people are favoring summarization included in this article? --George Ho (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This article does not need any of the Twitter stuff in it, and adding anything would be undue weight. The link to the Twitter article that's in the template box is sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of "Dreams" autobiography as RS

Not trying to be a trouble-maker here, but is it appropriate to use Obama's own autobiography as a reliable source for facts of his life? David Maraniss of the Washington Post has just published a biography of President Obama that involved a bunch of gumshoe research into Obama's background, interviews with relevant parties, and attempts to trace and document details from the president's early life. Maraniss concluded that many assertions in Obama's autobiography (including some fairly dramatic elements) are in fact fictional, perhaps included to enhance the narrative. Some of the later printings of Dreams include a qualifier that some people (e.g. girlfriends) are composite, but Maraniss documents that it goes far beyond that. I suggest that "Dreams from my Father", as a work that lies somewhere between autobiography and "historical fiction" with no obvious lines drawn, does not meet the standards to be a RS in terms of seeking article material that is true and verifiable. On the plus side, new works like Maraniss' that are coming out may fill the void. Of note is that before publishing, Maraniss allegedly sat down with the president and described some of the discrepancies, and Obama allegedly said that Maraniss had basically got things right. So I don't consider this some kind of fringe objection or anything; Maraniss is solidly in the mainstream. Comments? Wookian (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

is this a general question or are there any specific parts of the article soured to Obama's book that you have issues with.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am suggesting that Dreams be entirely excluded as a source for factual information. It's unfortunate, but seems unavoidable based on its nature as a hybrid of autobiography and fiction with no fixed or discernable boundaries. Wookian (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, there is one really big glaring issue with your assertion: it's based on an opinion piece published in the NYT opinion blog. Plus, the people making the accusations have their own axes to grind with Obama which discredit their assertions. In the end, there would need to be a whole boatload more of reliable sourced full articles before there is any question about the reliability of the man's own autobiography. Not just a few hand picked articles, but literally hundreds of articles and years of research before people would even believe this. Plus, your editing history here on this page and other Obama related articles speaks against "not trying to be a trouble-maker." Nuff said. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly there is one really big glaring issue with your assertation, which is David Maraness is not a Republican and has no axe to grind with Obama. It has been acknowledged by Obama himself that many of the events in the book are not completely true. In general, autobiographys should never be used for factual information on the subject since the subject, in this case Obama, had much to gain by making fictional changes to his life story. IP74, why are you defending a fiction portrayal of Obama? Arzel (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Names were changed to protect privacy of non-family members, and some people from the book have narratives that are composites of actual people for the same reason and for narrative flow. That is quite a world apart from dismissing the whole thing as fiction. Is there anything presently in this article sourced to Dreams of My Father that is contradicted by this new book? Tarc (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some parts are fiction, like that of his grandfather. Not sure why this gets a pass from WP:SELFPUB now that we know that parts are simply not true. Arzel (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of anything in the article that uses Dreams as a reliable source, except where the article explicitly states "Obama said in Dreams.." (or words to that effect), which is perfectly okay. This is a discussion about a problem that doesn't exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see it being used as a hard reference in the article, but it is listed as a reference. I havn't gone through the whole article to see what, if anything, is actually being used as a source from the book, but it should probably be removed from the references section and listed in aditional reading or something like that. Furthermore, it is not an actual autobiography, it is a memoir, a subtle but important diference. Arzel (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"I agree." - *Falls off chair* - A stunning, historical moment for Wikipedia. I spent ages checking article references to make sure nothing used Dreams as an RS before commenting. It appears only as a general reference for those few times when it is quoted in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to you guys for your prescience on this. A quick google search for site:en.wikipedia.org "Dreams From My Father" reveals multiple BLP's using Dreams to allege factual information. But I disagree that adding "as Obama wrote in..." lets us off the hook. If the entire book has to be regarded (by default) as fictional, then its assertions belong in the dedicated article about the book until verified elsewhere, and should not be used to assert BLP facts, even with "weasel words" included. For most readers, pointing to the President's own autobiography would add legitimacy in their minds. Therefore, for editors to do so in order to avoid the need to cite a reliable source is misleading to readers, and is exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia needs: truth and verifiability. Wookian (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"If the entire book has to be regarded (by default) as fictional" is not a position I support, and it will be quite frowned upon if an editor begins to scrape the site removing every ref to the book just because it is to the book and not because they have investigated the content behind the cite. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules prohibit massive, knee-jerk purges in general, because they are more disruptive than they are helpful. However, one function of Talk discussion is to reach consensus about what is acceptable, and start to gradually evolve the site in that direction. I guess I should clarify -- obviously I'm not saying that I believe everything or even most things in Dreams are false statements. Rather, I'm suggesting that based on what we know now about the nature of the book, any individual Dreams assertion has a decent chance of being fictional and therefore doesn't belong in any BLP articles with no other sourcing. If Dreams is a mixture of fiction and truth without any clear dividing lines, isn't that a fair position to take? Wookian (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear. If we are quoting something Obama said in his book, then it is perfectly acceptable to use the book as a reference for that. And the idea that the book is now regarded as "fiction" is completely ridiculous. And what do you mean by "multiple BLPs" exactly? Please give an example of where you think the book is being misused as a reference. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I already gave an example. Perform the google search I suggested, and in the top 15 results you will see Dreams quotes or paraphrases being used as factual material for some BLP articles. There may be more that don't exactly match my search. Also, I never said that the entire book is regarded as fiction, but rather that Maraniss has shown that it's a mixture of fiction and non-fiction with no clear line between the two. Unfortunately, that should be enough to place Dreams on a blacklist for Wikipedia BLP purposes. If you disagree, feel free to explain why without misrepresenting my statements. Wookian (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't make me do your work for you. Show me an example, an actual example rather than a hypothetical example, of where Dreams from My Father has been used as a reliable source for factual information. Don't expect me to be doing Google searches to support your hypothesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard be a better place to have this discussion? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, because we are not talking about a general RS usage, but rather using it as a reference for quotes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Source evaluation via google

So, taking "site:en.wikipedia.org "Dreams From My Father" as the search parameter, let's look at the first 10 hits on articles excluding the book article itself and the cover image;

1. Ann Dunham#Personal beliefs, a reflection on his mother's needlepoint virtues.
2. Barack Obama#Family and personal life, discussion of maternal relations to Jefferson Davis and Native Americans.
3. Lolo Soetoro#Marriage to Ann Dunham, his descriptions of Soetoro and his faith.
4. Zeituni Onyango, notes that he referred to her as "Aunti Zeituni" and his visit to her in 1982.
5. Altgeld Gardens, Chicago#Existing conditions, mentions Obama's participation as a community organizer in the effort to rid the project of asbestos. Could use an actual citation, though.
6. Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic, cites the parade being held on the second Saturday in August since 1929.
7. Barack Obama, Sr.#Kenya, statement that the Obama family questions the paternity of two of Obama's sons with his former wife.
8. Madelyn Dunham, discusses his grandparents' religious views and his interactions with them.
9. Frank Marshall Davis#Davis and Barack Obama, discusses his relationship with "Frank" in quotes which makes clear that this is one of the name-changed-to-protect-the-privacy cases (and later on notes and cites where Obama confirmed who "Frank" was), and also includes a paragraph regarding some of Jerome Corsi's claims in his book about the Obama-Davis relationship.
10. Family of Barack Obama#Paternal relations, various family details.

All in all I'm not seeing much here to get all wee-wee'ed up, to borrow a Palinism, about here. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The last one most certainly is using the book through secondary references of DOMF for false factual claims regarding his grandfathers claim of torture by the British. There is no evidence of this actually happening, but there is a detailed paragraph in that article discussing it as very factual, along with BO's feelings about it. And why do you have to make statements like you did about Palin? Does the left never tire of attacking her? Arzel (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the Right never attacks Obama, right? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right, maybe there are 57 states after all. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) - The point is that this:

"In Barack Obama's memoir, Dreams From My Father, he describes them as 'stern Methodist parents who did not believe in drinking, playing cards or dancing.'" (Madelyn Dunham)

is not at all the same as this:

"Barack Obama's parents were Methodists who didn't drink, gamble or dance.^[1]"

where the reference is Dreams from My Father. As long as we have the proper attribution, as in this example, use of the book as a reference is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is probably one of the best examples of a good reference for this sort of stuff you can get! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Prior to learning about Maraniss' book, I would have agreed with you. However, I suggest that Dreams crosses a line, and it is a disservice to readers who are looking for true and verifiable information to intermingle the content of Dreams with RS's, even with inline citation included. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig; to quote an Obama-ism. ;) Wookian (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And I suggest you're wrong and are looking for nothing but a little drama-stirring as we get deeper into election season. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless there are assertions of fact made in an article which are contradicted by other, reliable sources, this is a non-issue. And, of course, the book can be used as a source for what Obama has said in the book!LedRush (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc too. This has passed beyond "not trying to be a trouble-maker here" into trouble-maker territory. The presence of attribution ("Obama said...") makes it 100% okay to cite the book, as is normally the case on every other Wikipedia article in existence. Recommend this thread be closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith is not appreciated. Beyond that, simply requiring an inline citation is not an appropriate technique to allow allegations that have a good chance of being fictional to leak into BLPs (am I wrong?). For the reader perusing the article, it is presented as a de facto RS. You can't roll back the clock and un-publish Maraniss' book. You can't make Dreams become a moderately credible source again. Its credibility is shot at this point. I suggest that you stop giving Dreams so much respect that it does not deserve. Wookian (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, a person's autobiography is highly relevant to their biography. Even if it were fictionalized, exaggerated, or otherwise untrue, that in itself is an important biographical fact.- Wikidemon (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see just which parts of the article you find poorly sourced. If the article explicitly states that the information is coming from a memoir, i.e. "In Barack Obama's memoir, Dreams From My Father, he describes them as 'stern Methodist parents who did not believe in drinking, playing cards or dancing.'" then the reader knows not to trust that as gospel, but rather the view of the person who wrote it, which is still biographically important. Which sentence(s) specifically do you take issue with?--DeliciousMeatz (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the significant fraudulent/fictionalized elements already identified in Dreams, the whole book has to be regarded as untrustworthy. The problem is that ordinary readers of Wikipedia won't be aware of that -- I think it's fairly unusual that a memoir this high profile would be found wanting like this. So it's really necessary as a courtesy to the reader to avoid quoting Dreams in such a way that readers would mistake it for a RS. An inline citation doesn't really solve the problem, it effectively functions in this specific case as "weasel words" building up reader confidence where little is warranted. Wookian (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you site any examples where the book is the only source for a factual claim in the article? --Meatz 03:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliciousMeatz (talk • contribs)

Hi, DeliciousMeatz; if you read through the previous section and this section you will see some of the material that was highlighted as an example of using Dreams to present factual assertions. Wookian (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you show a place where Dreams is used to present factual assertions which are in dispute by reliable sources?LedRush (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any example or I would go ahead and correct it, and then it wouldn't be an example anymore. :) But that's irrelevant to the current topic of discussion, which is whether the rest of Dreams should be trusted or not. At this point, I would reiterate that its credibility is shot, and its assertions have no place in BLP factual assertions, even with inline citation. You're welcome to disagree. Wookian (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You may reiterate it all you like, but at this point it is a distinctly minority point of view. We're not going to be conducting a wholesale removal of citations to the book, so is there anything else to discuss here? Tarc (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not done. Question for you, Tarc: Do you (a) dispute Maraniss' research, or (b) are you saying that it's acceptable to use a book that is known to contain multiple glaring examples of fabrications and fraudulence as a stand-alone source for factual information in BLP articles? I don't see any gray area between those two possibilities. Just want to get you on record either way. Wookian (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't be the only one who notices that certain editors here are trying to give President Obama a pass from the normal Wikipedia rules that apply to everyone else. If you write a book, put a bunch of dramatic fictional fluff in it, and sell it as non-fiction, then it is not reliable for BLP Wikipedia usage, period. Keeping it out of the sources section and just adding an inline citation is a cop-out. It is interesting that certain editors here are basically refusing to discuss the merits of the debate, but instead getting irritated and trying to shut down the discussion. If material is included that is unfavorable to Obama, I can't help but notice that those same editors are first in line to assert the strictest BLP standards and exclude such material. Very questionable standards at play here. Wookian (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing questionable here. An autobiography is not a tome of gospel truth or a fact-checked history textbook, it is a person's story told by themselves. We use such things by noting where it came from, make clear the citation is from the book/author, and avoid using it to try to support controversial or unverifiable claims. For example, Worldnet Daily is a failure of the WP:RS policy. Does that mean we can never use it? Of course not, we can use WND to support simple matters regarding WND itself or other mundane information. We can't use it as part of, say, the birther article, because their opinion on the matter is horribly biased and worthless. Same would go for counterpunch.org, it could never be used for an article on the War on Terror or George W. Bush. Get it? Tarc (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What disturbs me about this conversation is that Wookian has actually claimed Obama has perpetrated a fraud with his memoir. I'm pretty sure such statements on a talk page are a gross violation of WP:BLP. Show me a source that states Dreams from My Father contains "fabrications and fraudulence", or consider refactoring some of your comments, Wookian. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@Wookian: Sorry, I only read about half the above discussion, so let me just cut to the chase: Is there a specific claim in this article sourced to Obama's book that is contracticted by a secondary reliable source? This is a yes or no question. If the answer is 'no', there is no need to continue this discussion. If the answer is 'yes', then please indicate the specific claim that being disputed. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Scjessey says: "What disturbs me... fraud... fabrications and fraudulence" -- David Maraniss describes the extent of the fictionalization of the work here. He insists that the extent of the fictionalization goes "far beyond" the qualifiers in Obama's introduction, and gives some examples of the discrepencies he found. According to Maraniss, it's a piece of literature infused with substantive fictional elements to create a narrative that Obama wanted to tell, not a narrative that was true to life. To the extent that it was presented and received as factual, that was, of course, fraudulent. One may overlook passed-down family stories that Obama never fact-checked when evaluating the trustworthiness of his book, but there are quite a few fabrications that are entirely his own. So this is simply a less-flattering way of expressing the same thing Maraniss said. It seems to me that euphemizing Obama's "untruthiness" here would be an exercise in rationalizing his book's inappropriate de facto use as a reliable source. Wookian (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, "fraudulent" is your word, not the author's. You have violated WP:BLP by stating your opinion that Obama's work is fraudulent. You've gone to great pains in this discussion thread to paint Obama's memoir (Gore Vidal said: "a memoir is how one remembers one's own life, while an autobiography is history, requiring research, dates, facts double-checked.") as a work of fiction, yet we do not use Dreams from My Father as a source for anything other than what is said by Obama in the book. That is absolutely an appropriate use. You are very much in the wrong on this and your behavior now appears quite tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consist of exact quotes of all source material. Paraphrasing is ordinary. If you accept that Dreams was presented as non-fiction, and you accept Maraniss' research and reporting about it, then I don't see what your hangup is. Are you claiming that Dreams is "how Obama remembers his own life"? If so, then you reject Maraniss' characterization. Maraniss made clear that Obama constructed significant and non-trivial fictional narratives. Much of it is "memoir" and much of it is [fictional] "literature". So what exactly is your problem? Maybe you are being tendentious. Wookian (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am the newest guy here, so I could be wrong about this, but doesn't WP:BLP explicitly state: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person ... that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"? I think calling a major politician's memoir fraudulent, when the source you are using doesn't even go close to that word, qualifies as a conjectural interpretation. --Meatz (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Just me?

Yes, but textual literalism about BLP is kind of risky, by that standard we couldn't even talk about BLP violations on article talk pages because to do so would be to repeat a BLP violation. So discussions about BLP would all have to be done by some kind of voodoo hive-magic. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The link Wookian gives himself is an interesting read, but an even more telling video interview. Wookian seems to be accomplishing exactly what the author of this book suggests that those in the 'anti-Obama' category may try. He suggests that those on the right will(and are trying now) to use his book to bash Obama about his memoirs, and he calls these attempts a complete distortion of his research. I would say that unless there are specific instances of citations of 'Dreams' as a source(in this article) with links to reliable sources that contradict the citations, this thread should be closed and everyone should move on. This Talk page is for discussion about specific ways to improve this article, not what it is being used for here in this thread. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Closure needed

The "it's a fake" claims are part of the normal attack politics expected at this stage of an election cycle. The first reply to Wookian was "is this a general question or are there any specific parts of the article sourced to Obama's book that you have issues with", and that key question has not been addressed. It is time to close this pointless discussion. If someone has something relevant per WP:TPG to add, they should start a new section discussing specific text in the article (text that uses Dreams from My Father as a reliable source), and present a brief statement of why the source is not adequate to verify the text. If not satisfied with the response, rather than pressing some point here (see "placed on article probation" at top of this page), the correct procedure would be to enquire at WP:RSN. Before doing that, prepare for the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where a source is evaluated as "reliable" or otherwise—a source is evaluated only against its use to verify a specific claim. Therefore, there should be no discussion of a source without a specific claim in an article—a claim that relies on the source and which can reasonably be doubted (for example, we don't doubt the name of Obama's mother). Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The archive reason above is an attempt to shut down what I believe is a legitimate discussion by a person who is apparently uninformed about the conversation, perhaps from not having read through all of it. I am a little new to Wikipedia, so if reverting the archive is a faux pas, please go easy on me. :)

First: I did in fact provide a specific example from this article. I did so by giving a google search that also helpfully proved a side observation that Dreams is being used several places in Wikipedia to provide factual content, which answered somebody else's question. The specific one from this article is listed right here in the discussion (perhaps Johnuniq missed it) -- "Barack Obama#Family and personal life, discussion of maternal relations to Jefferson Davis and Native Americans.". And yes, I do suggest that Dreams to be an unreliable source for this detail, not because it is in the memoir genre, but because of what we learn about the drastic extent of Dreams' fictionalization in Maraniss' book. If the author felt free to fictionalize significant parts of the narrative, as Maraniss documents, then there is no reason this part is exempt. One can come up with examples where Dreams seems trustworthy (his mother's name, his birth location), but only because those are facts verifiable from a reliable source. Dreams is a heavy admixture of fiction with autobiography, or as Maraniss puts it, literature with memoir.

Second: Despite some editors' inexplicable-to-me implicit trust of Dreams in this conversation, I don't see consensus for Johnuniq's suggestion that Maraniss is some kind of political operative ("the normal attack politics expected at this stage of an election cycle"). In fact, as somebody mentions above, Maraniss is dismayed to think about the hay that Republicans might make (and in fact are making all over the blogosphere and in editorial pages) in regard to his research. Maraniss himself is a journalist for the Washington Post who is simply working here as a fairly NPOV biographer. Wookian (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A new section should not repeat stuff from the last wall of text (it's only a distraction—whether I did or did not do something is not relevant to what should happen in the article). Re the above statement, the article says (with my underlining): "Obama ties his mother's family history to possible Native American ancestors and distant relatives of Jefferson Davis". That is an attributed statement noting possible and distant relations, and is not a claim of something extraordinary (which would require very good sources). Some brief thought shows that it is very likely that there are many people in the US who satisfy those claims (although knowing for which individuals it is true would be difficult), and the article merely notes the fact that Obama "ties" his mother's history—the article does not suggest it is true, nor does it suggest the claim is somehow significant. The second para above (regarding whether someone is a political operative) is totally off-topic. Please stick to what I suggested: identify specific text in the article and present a brief statement of why the source is not adequate to verify the text. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment here is odd, because the line of conversation you are calling "totally off topic" is one you started and I replied to (discussing whether Maraniss is a credible commentator on the fictional character of Dreams due to the political bias you apparently see him having). Wookian (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

By failing to identify problem text in the article, you are merely demonstrating that there is not a problem in the article. This page is not a forum for a general discussion about a new book or its author. Johnuniq (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this is at the point where simple disengagement is the best course of action. A matter was brought up, a matter was discussed, and as far as I can determined, the editor's complaint did not hit the magic consensus bar. Nothing else to accomplish here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I think the above is a fair statement, and it's OK with me to close the discussion on this basis, though I would like to see it left open for at least a bit in case somebody else wants to weigh in. Wookian (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll weigh in. Here is a two direct quotes from WP on no consensus:

In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus commonly results in no change being made to the article. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of contentious matter.

Not sure which is more relevant. William Jockusch (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Obamas Religion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Arttcles state that President Obamas religion is not know by 44 precent of Americans and another 8 say he doesnt have any. But only 4 precent say he's Catholic. So is it safe to put nothing, or at least Atheist. http://www.livescience.com/21141-americans-muddled-obama-religion.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIARay (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Don't be idiotic. From your source: "Knowledge of Obama's religion is stronger among Democrats, 52 percent of whom correctly said he is a Christian" --NeilN talk to me 16:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC) A little harsh, perhaps. :) How about this: All reliable sources that address Obama's religion follow the universal standard in modern society, which is to let the man speak for himself. Obama claims to be a Christian (as sourced in the current article). Therefore while admitting that the label "Christian" admits of considerable latitude, we must reject religiously motivated arguments that e.g. "Obama was born to a Muslim father and thus must always be a Muslim" or "doesn't follow some specific sect of Christianity and thus must be labeled atheist" or "has taken a look at his belly button in the past and is therefore a Zen Buddhist". Wikipedia is on firm ground here in terms of mainstream use of the word "Christian" and ascription of religious affiliation. A national poll in particular is not credible enough to change this mainstream convention. Wookian (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Perhaps, but given AIARay's first edit was this, your well-reasoned points may be too subtle. --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC) All that poll shows is ignorance of people regarding Obama's religion not any dispute of what Obama's religion is. To be blunt a large portion of the American public not knowing Obama's religion does not turn Obama into a Atheist.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC) If you go to the top of this page you can see a FAQ section to uncollapse. Question 1, entitled "Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?", gives a brief explanation and refers to two articles that discuss the subject in more depth, Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. The fact that many people consider(ed) him Muslim even though he is not is itself a notable cultural phenomenon, hence the article on the subject. Obama's quitting his old church is described in the Jeremiah Wright controversy, but speculation about what it means to be nondemoninational or not a member of one specific church or another is really just talk here (see WP:FORUM and WP:OR), it does not seem to be a notable issue that interests the sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Let's stop beating about the bush here. This is NOT a religious issue, nor really one of simple ignorance. It's deliberate misinformation propagated by Obama's political opponents, and readily absorbed by unthinking, often bigoted supporters of the parties represented by those political opponents. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC) NeilN phrases his apt observation above on this edit with commendable fastidiousness. Time to collapse this section? -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Colorado mass shooting

Irrelevant to Obama's life or presidency; this discussion will not lead to improvements in the article; WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please add: "Under Obama administration in 2012, the number of casualties (12 deaths and 58 injuries) makes the Colorado movie theater shooting the largest mass shooting in U.S. history." reference: http://gma.yahoo.com/colorado-batman-movie-shooting-suspect-phd-student-085940589--abc-news-topstories.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.185.99 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC) That wording gives the impression that there is a causal link between President Obama and the shooting. Lots of things happen during a Presidential administration that have nothing to do with the President. SMP0328. (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Do you say that Obama could do nothing as a President? Then read: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Barack-Obama-Gun-Control.htm . From this: "Given Obama’s record as an Illinois state senator, where he stated his support for an all-out ban on handguns, among other gun control stances, pro-gun advocates were concerned that gun rights might suffer under an Obama presidential administration." ... "After Obama’s election, gun sales reached a record pace as gun owners snatched up guns, particularly those that had been branded assault weapons under the defunct 994 Assault Weapons ban, out of an apparent fear that Obama would crack down on gun ownership." It would be good to open in the main article a new section 4.2.4 Gun rights and their consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.185.99 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I don't think it needs to be added at this time since it does not have much to do with the President himself or any legislation passed or even proposed. If things change and this significantly affects Obama (this becomes a cornerstone of a major gun control push he spearheads or Mitt Romney wins the election by using this event to portray Obama as weak on crime etc) then it could very well warrant an addition but not at this time. Also While it is true that Obama has pushed for gun control in the past I have not seen any reliable sources connecting that to the shooting in question so it should not be mentioned unless the link can be made.--70.49.83.93 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC) no obvious obama-->this crime connection. plus: pretty sure the second Virginia Tech massacre killed more. (ah yes just looked it up: tech's deaths = 33! cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC) No doubt killed more, but read again, we talked about number of casualties and this is for Virgina: 33+23=56 < Aurora: 12+58=70. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.160.194 (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC) casualties versus fatalities is a seldom-used and confusing measure. and, again, no connection between this crime and who happened to be in the white house. not like the shooter went around shouting 'vote obama' or 'go romney' or had and political motive that anyone has yet found. there was no national emergency needing federal-level response justifying inclusion of the event in the sitting president's article --as, say, many would say was needed during W's term when hurricane katrina struck. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I would say even if he was an Obama supporter it would not be enough to include here since that is Obama's personal biography and if the only connection to Obama is that he planned to vote for him that is not relevant enough for a biography on Obama. Something more significant would need to happen first (ie this event allows the republicans to pain Obama as a radical via guilt by association and causes him to lose the election etc) before an addition is considered. I would also oppose an inclusion of Romney's page if the shooter was one of his supporters for the same reason.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

New picture of Obama

My proposal is a BW picture of the black Obama: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/7592316414/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.68.58.196 (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Balance on the bin Ladin killing

I think this revert was a mistake and I would like to place it for review here. --John (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a biography about Barack Obama. It is written in summary style, because there is so much information about that man and his life that it is impossible to put everything in a single article. Instead, where additional detail is needed there are sub/daughter articles. In the case of Osama bin Laden's death, the article is (not surprisingly) Death of Osama bin Laden. The specifics are covered in the section Operation Neptune Spear, and it probably makes sense to put the Amnesty International stuff in that section. In fact, Amnesty International's view is already in that article. There simply isn't the space for it here, and it probably violates WP:WEIGHT anyway. I hope this explanation satisfies you. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I am afraid it totally doesn't. I am an admin and I enforce NPOV and WEIGHT every day. To omit any of the negative response to this action whatsoever contravenes WP:NPOV. Read what WEIGHT actually says before you quote it, please. --John (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - With all due respect, your status as an administrator has absolutely nothing to do with your knowledge/understanding of Wikipedia policy. I'm also an experienced editor with an intimate knowledge of WP:NPOV, but I've never chosen to seek the tools necessary to perform administrative actions. The Amnesty International view does not represent a significant viewpoint with respect to this article, having received little coverage in the mainstream media compared to other aspects of Obama's biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems we disagree. Let's see what other editors think. --John (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Balance" is not a valid editing criterion. That, combined with an NPOV assertion, is by definition a POV edit. If the legal / ethical objections to Bin Laden's killing are a noteworthy biographical event in the life and career of Obama (and sourced to be so), the subject of this article, then they are noteworthy and dserving of inclusion. If not, no. Whether that is critical or supportive of the President is neither here nor there, POV does not enter into the question. At any event, the claim isn't reliably sourced. "X objects to Y" [cite x] is not reliable sourcing, it's using the thing itself to source its own content, in other words primary sourcing. That doesn't establish weight or relevance at all. If you want to source that Amnesty International has an objection and establish that there is any weight to it, you have to find third party sources that cover Amnesty International's opinion and start from there. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, there were more than Amnesty who criticised the killing. Here are a few, fairly easily found sources.

• Guardian
• Noam Chomsky refers to it as murder
• BBC; Benjamin Ferencz says it was a crime
• Telegraph coverage of the Amnesty report
• Pakistani take on Amnesty report
• Indian take on it

--John (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is this edit which added the following at the end of Barack Obama#Osama bin Laden:

Legal and ethical aspects of the killing, such as his not being taken alive despite being unarmed, were questioned by others, including Amnesty International."Questions around operation against Osama bin Laden". Retrieved May 6, 2011.

Text like that is not suitable here as the matter is properly covered in the linked Death of Osama bin Laden (and reactions at Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden). There are mountains of text that could be in this article, but what should be here is a plain statement of the facts. The article does not puff up Obama's role—it just states the plain facts, leaving nuances, talking points, and opinions to the main article. Please do not add tags to a featured article watched by many editors to express dissatisfaction with a standard BRD event. Instead, explain why there is a need to check the section for neutrality: what existing text is not neutral? what significant view must be stated? Should there be mention of opinions held by OBL's supporters? What about those of the Pakistani government? There is no way to neutrally sum up views in this biography. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(after multiple ec) The BBC is such a third party reliable source (the other two are opinion pieces - note: this is after an EC and I only had a chance to review the first 3 sources'). My hunch is that this is indeed easy to find and a significant enough matter to cover. I don't think you're being POV to propose this, just that "balance" is not really a great description of what we're trying to do. Something like "completeness" is a more neutral way to think of it. Keeping in mind that almost every significant event about Obama is covered in thousands to tens of thousands of articles, do we have the sense that the legal / ethical objections to the killing are treated by the sources as an important matter? Not that this is the standard, but if you read a hundred neutral accounts of the incident from different sources, would more than one or two mention this? Again, my hunch is yes. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(comment re. Johnuniq) I generally agree. The issue here is that the article already contains a long sentence beginning "Reaction to the announcement was positive..." If we're going to describe the reaction, and there is a significant negative reaction in addition to a significant positive reaction, we ought to do this in a complete way and not just cover part of the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Completeness is a perfectly acceptable term to describe what we should be looking for here. It is not acceptable especially on a featured article on a politician, to omit significant criticism by a human rights organisation which was widely reported in the world's press, and only to report the positive reaction. There was both, and our article must reflect this. --John (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, John. This is the hard part of wikipedia. There is a big fight on politician's article for every edit to get accepted. Especially on this article, it is totally white washed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.68.58.196 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See, that's the exact problem, people who want to add material that reflects poorly on Obama because they feel the article needs to be intentionally biased towards a more negative POV. There are accusations of whitewashing, being paid editors, and lots of other nonsense simply because the article does not give enough attention to Obama's opposition. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) My quick opinion is that if we are describing the reaction, then we must include a good summary. This would include the easily sourceable criticisms. Arkon (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

While I don't have much of an opinion about this particular issue (bin Laden being killed instead of taken alive), given that this is a section about foreign policy, it seems to me that the violating Pakistan's sovereignty is a far more serious issue, and one that has actually had an impact on US relations with another country. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

There are various people and nations who support, and oppose, any action of the US. Maybe we should drop the entire reaction material, otherwise we're getting into an "Obama woke up in the morning. Democrats approved, Republicans cried foul, Noam Chomsky argued that there are oppressed people living under American hegemony who did not even get up in the morning." - Wikidemon (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I could personally support dropping it all, but would have to agree that it's not complete as it stands. Arkon (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Amnesty International's descent into the fringe, as exemplified by this opinion, should not be included. I would suggest that if concerns were to be included, it would be far more appropriate to include mainstream Republican criticism about intel leaks in the wake of the operation.William Jockusch (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion got off to a bad start because this page is continually hit with people wanting to add negative material (haven't noticed any positive puffery for a while), and there was no explanation for the proposal. However, now that I've absorbed the point, it seems that while the last 100 similar attempts were misguided, this one is perfectly valid. The explanation is that the OBL section mentions the "positive across party lines" reaction, which is perfectly true, but which may suggest that everything was apple pie, which is not true. The solution is to either omit the "positive" comment (although that is a valid summary of what happened in many places), or mention that there were other views. The suggestion that "mainstream Republican criticism" should be included is exactly not appropriate as this biography is not the place to argue who is the best candidate. I recommend that John's text be restored unless someone has a good alternative. Any "balance" needs to reflect DUE opinions on Obama, and be a good fit for a biography. Johnuniq (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2012

I think the controversy over whether OBL should have been taken alive or dead deserves a few sentences.MONGO 14:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we get some sourcing that there is a bona fide controversy of significant proportions, and that this is relevant to Obama? We have sourcing that Amnesty International thinks so but no sourcing that this matters. Everyone has an opinion on everything the President does, that's too low a threshold. Without going through them all, google hits aren't conclusive, but as a start there are 13 news archive articles that mention Amnesty International in connection with the event[4] out of a total of 9,200.[5] Their particular opinion does not seem to matter much. Is there an indication that the sources mention this opposition in connection with a broad survey of the event? This article is a broad survey of Obama's life so an international legal / academic criticism of one particular act as head of state would have to be pretty important to be part of the telling of that life story. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm pretty ambivalent about this issue. I used to think of AI as needed protection from abusive Governments, but believe they have meandered into fringe territory the last decade or so. I'm sure some editors would like to add the AI indictment of George W. Bush for war crimes into the main Bush BLP(I hope it's not there, and don't think it belongs), but I believe the group is now a fringe entity that has greatly lowered it's international respect. I suppose if a neutral sentence is added with reliable secondary sourcing, it would be acceptable. Although I think it leads us down a bad road regarding living persons articles. Who will they indict next? Who will they accuse of war crimes? Those are serious allegations that should be carefully examined for credibility. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see AI as fringe. Rather, various western governments have badly lost their course - see extraordinary rendition, Camp X-Ray, "Enhanced interrogation techniques". AI has criticized torture and unjust imprisonment when it was primarily done by third world dictators, and it continues to do so now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the material should not be included, and this is not a close question. I find it remarkable that fringey criticism from the left is getting a serious hearing, while mainstream criticism from both parties that the White House is leaking intel is not under consideration for inclusion. [6][7][8][9]William Jockusch (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe the Amnesty International stuff as "fringey criticism from the left" at all. I'm pretty sure the Right and the Left are in unanimous agreement that killing Osama bin Laden was a double-plus good. I agree with Dave Dial in that Amnesty International has wandered off the path of the mainstream recently. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, fringey from the formerly-repsected organization Amnesty International . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk • contribs)

• I think we currently have consensus here that the material I added should be restored; it is well-referenced and proportionate. I find it disappointing that on an article under probation we seem to have editors who will tag-team to edit-war material they just do not like out of the article. Where do we go next; RfC, FAR or AN/I? Let's think hard. --John (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What consensus? I see the complete opposite. It would grossly violate WP:WEIGHT, as previously discussed. The matter has no significant impact on Obama's life, which this article describes. It probably has no impact at all, in fact. Also, the edit history shows that it is you who has chosen the path of edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • John -- wanting to see a consensus is not the same as actually seeing one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.177.205.223 (talk • contribs)
      • Obviously no consensus at this point. There's a reasonable chance of building consensus for this content proposal or something like it with some more discussion, focusing the content, and sourcing. To do that we're really going to have to work on collaboration skills and not making threats, accusing editors of tag teaming, etc. That will go nowhere fast, so anyone who wants to go somewhere with this ought to focus on gaining consensus for a content change. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
        • WP:NPOV is a pillar of our project and cannot be held hostage to political considerations as it seems at the moment to be. It disgusts me to see a clique of editors here pissing on it. Collaboration? I don't see it; instead I see stonewalling, fear of change, and people making excuses when good sources have been provided. Sorry if I sound negative but that is really how it looks to me as an editor trying in good faith to improve this rather weak article. --John (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
          • There's good sourcing that Amnesty International launched some accusations of crimes but not that it's significant and relevant to the subject of this article. I don't see any new content argument in there so there's nothing to further consider just yet. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"POV pushing"

A user has seen fit to accuse me of POV pushing over a rather mild recent edit [10]. Furthermore, that user chose to revert the entire edit over an issue with one portion of it. Such actions and accusations do not promote a civil discussion. As the user refused to self revert in response to a request on his talk page, I am repeating the request here.William Jockusch (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No. The article will not reflect the Republican talking point that "Obamacare" is a tax. This has already been discussed, language worked out, consensus established and edit made. Now you come in (as you have many times before) and try to change it to match the Republican POV. What else would you call it, if not POV pushing? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's stick to the question of article content please. Was there a prior discussion on that and can you point to it? Is it worth discussing again now? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there was not a prior discussion of the content that I am aware of. [I did take a break from this article, and it sounds like there was one while I was away]. The quick accusation simply rankles. The edit changed two things -- one intentional; one not, but I actually believe the second one was correct as well. First of all, I added the commerce clause portion of the Court's decision to the article. The is justified as it was widely mentioned in press coverage of the decision. It is additionally significant as it is the Court has not found any limitations on the Commerce power in a long time. I must say I am surprised that there is any dispute about the significance of this. The second change, which I didn't even intend to make at the time, but appears 100% correct in retrospect, was that I removed the false claim that the Court found that "any penalty could be imposed". As for the wording between "as a tax" [mine] or "under . . . taxing authority" [previous], I couldn't care less; both are 100% accurate.

I will add that I would like to stick to content, but as evidenced above, I make a single change which removes factually false information and adds factually true information, and I am accused of "pushing"; the accusation has now been made a total of three times! I am sure that the accuser believes in good faith that the accusation is true. However, such accusations, even though the accuser is clearly sincere in the belief that they are true, do not promote rational discussion and therefore must be confronted. The human thing to do at this point would be to admit error, offer an apology, and promise to have more caution about making such accusations in the future.William Jockusch (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Your version is not "100% accurate". Your version features the often-repeated Republican talking point that "Obamacare" is a tax. There is a big difference between a tax, and assessing a penalty under the taxing authority. If you are self employed and fail to file your quarterly returns, you are assessed a penalty under the taxing authority; however, nobody calls that a tax. The penalty assessed by the taxing authority for failure to get health insurance is identical in function. Not a tax (see Forbes for explanation). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, this is most disappointing. Regardless of whether or not we agree with another person's politics, it is polite to apologize when one makes an accusation that turns out to be false. Instead, it appears that a user is intent on finding a different fault. Such actions try one's assumption of good faith.William Jockusch (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The accusation is not false. You've frequently found yourself on the receiving end of such accusations from many different editors, so what does that tell you? We're getting tired of it. Now as my previous comment notes, you are wrong about this tax thing. If you propose text on this talk page and seek consensus instead of just sticking it in to the article, you will not find yourself in this position. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Time for a Featured Article Review?

I hadn't read this for quite a while and I see quite a few problems with its quality. I also notice its Featured Article status hasn't been properly reviewed since 2008. In that time, standards at FA have risen significantly. I wonder how regular editors would feel about conducting a proper audit to see whether the wider community think this article meets current FA criteria? I feel it could only benefit the article to undergo such a process. --John (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We're barely 100 days out from the election, and this article will doubtless receive a growing number of attacks from vandals and POV warriors if 2008 was any indication. Are you sure you want to get into a FAR procedure with all that going on? A review would be welcome, but only after the seas are calmer. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think an FAR would be very beneficial, especially given the visibility of the article. The purpose of FARs is to discuss possible improvements "without declarations of "keep" or "delist"', with the aim "to improve articles rather than to demote them" (see WP:FAR). —Eustress ^talk 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but the timing is bad. Regular editors of this article will probably concur with me when I say that things are going to get messy here over the next 3 months. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If people believe that a review would be beneficial, I see no problem with the timing. Arkon (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If it happens now, it will be a circus. The FAR will also become a target for the fuckwits who'll be soon laying this article to siege. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, your bad faith is showing. Comments like this only make the need for a review more clear, and help to turn this into the circus you decry. Arkon (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith? What are you talking about? I'm just saying that in the run up to the previous election, this article was constantly under attack from partisan editors and vandals. I think it likely this will happen again, which means a FAR procedure could be difficult to go through at the same time. Where's the bad faith in that? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"If it happens now, it will be a circus. The FAR will also become a target for the fuckwits who'll be soon laying this article to siege." I don't know how that can be read to contain any good faith whatsoever. Arkon (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Fuckwits" is my term for the vandals that attacked the article last time around. Examples include the fuckwits who blanked the article, the fuckwits who replaced the article with "Obama rocks!", the fuckwits who replaced the article with "Obama is a Muslim!" - there were literally hundreds of these fuckwits in 2008. Nobody assumes good faith with blatant vandals. Why are you making a big deal out of this? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

All of those things are easily and quickly handled (I was here for 2008 too, you know). Hardly an argument against a review. Arkon (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it got so bad it turned into an Arbcom thing. I'm not against a review, I'm just saying it might be a problem trying to do it at the same time, that's all. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

← I totally agree with Scjessey about the timing. Things got so bad here leading up to the 2008 election that we had to go to ArbCom, leading to article probation with strict behavioral guidelines. There was a great deal of disruption and Arkon, quite to the contrary, those things were not at all easily or quickly handled. I believe that doing a FAR now will certainly destabilize this article. So close to the election a FAR could be used as a political tactic - I'm not saying that the suggestion in itself is a political tactic, but I believe it can be used as such. I am saying that FAR in good times can be difficult, and doing it when a huge amount of attention will no doubt be on it is a prescription for chaos. When things settle down, a FAR would be fine. Right now, I strongly oppose it. (And I would similarly oppose such a review for Mitt Romney's GA status now.) Tvoz/talk 22:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. There are certainly people still here that were involved in that arbcom case (Not it). That much is correct. But what Scjessey described was not the behavior that caused it. I am trying to stop that behavior, you are welcome to help there. None of your comment is an argument against review. This isn't scare tactics :) Arkon (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As a general comment: Seriously? This is the wiki page for the President of the United States of America. You think a FA review will be overwhelmed? Again, seriously? How many people have this page watchlisted again? I can't accept that as a reason. If you think it would result in some of you going to arbcom, take your bruises if you did something wrong, but try not to. I'm trying to keep it from going there. If your reasoning is best, you'll gain consensus, the end. Arkon (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it could be a big mess. The immediate timing and circumstance of this proposal is problematic. As far as it being near election time, this article along with John McCain got to FA status in the first place on the eve of an election that was at least as contentious as the current one, so it's theoretically possible now. But it probably would be extra difficult given the concerns about trolling, socking, etc. Just what is the reasoning for doing it at this time? Is there any specific concern about a possible deterioration in article quality? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason for doing it at this time would be that pretty much every commenter has agreed that it's a good idea. Timing is the only issue, and I find the argument specious. We have semi-protect, full protection, and blocks. Look, I have comic book character articles that get more vandalism than this page on my watchlist. When is a better time? Arkon (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• The article, in its current state, seems to struggle with all five parts of criterion 1, especially a, b and d. There is no way an article as badly written and uncritically positive would pass in 2012. If not now, when? --John (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Just to be clear, I do not think there has been a deterioration that would require a FAR at this time, and I think the argument against doing it now is strong. When I said that at some point it would be "fine", I wasn't saying it was a good idea, or that I thought it was warranted. I was saying I don't unilaterally oppose the concept of a FAR at some point, if there is consensus that there are significant problems with the rating, but the timing is indeed the problem. And no, I am not concerned that I would be taken to ArbCom, or that any of the long-time conscientious editors here would - the point is that we needed the extreme imposition of article probation at least in part because of the influx of editors with political agendas. I am saying that the process itself can be used for political purposes, and as such - absent a compelling reason for it being done now - the stability of the article should be maintained though the election. (Same for the Romney bio.) Perhaps you don't remember the amount and nature of the vandalism and disruption that plagued these articles before the last election, but I do, and I feel strongly that this is not the time to declare open season on them. I expect we'll have more than enough to handle without the added FAR process. Tvoz/talk 00:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't need to have been deterioration; as I said, standards have risen and what passed in 2007 often wouldn't pass now. Review is nothing to be afraid of. --John (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess someone needs to say this: but bring up a FAR at this time is extremely suspect. Especially as the proposer mentions: "uncritically positive" which is a derivation said by those on the far right. The same people who come here to crusade in an attempt to change this article into one that is seen on conservapedia. If the proposer's aim is only to improve the article and not to impart a conservative POV, then waiting a bit will not hurt anything at all. Yet, pushing forward now with the clear understanding that this processes will be gamed, disrupted, and used to push POV's into the article, is clearly an extremely bad and suspect idea. Also please note: if this is allowed to continue forward, then people will come out of the wood work pushing for inclusion every election talking point. Heck, I can guarantee you that as soon as Mitt Romney makes a claim against Obama, then people would rush over here to try and include it. (This has happened before and will happen again is allowed to continue forward.) 74.79.34.29 (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan

This needs updated; did troop withdrawals begin on time in May 2011, or not? Having the statement sitting there in July 2012 looks poor. --John (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe instead of posting this comment saying the info/section looks poor. Why not you take the time to look it up and add/fix the information. Just posting this comment here is in poor taste and shows a certain laziness. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)