Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

Religious upbringing

I removed the section "raised Muslim" because Obama senior was a Muslim until six years old. I don't see why his religious 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" --

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)

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)

Height stats

closing thread about trivia, complete with ridiculous speculation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) During the 2008 campaign a spokesperson said he was about 6 feet tall, so somewhere between 5'11¾" and 6'¾" I assume, though I think he has been wearing lifts since the election because he now looks closer to 6'2" IMO. Michelle Obama is 5'11" and I believe Romney is 6'2", so we will see who is taller when they meet for debate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of "Dreams" autobiography as RS

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.

---

Extended content

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; Ann Dunham#Personal beliefs, a reflection on his mother's needlepoint virtues. Barack Obama#Family and personal life, discussion of maternal relations to Jefferson Davis and Native Americans. Lolo Soetoro#Marriage to Ann Dunham, his descriptions of Soetoro and his faith. Zeituni Onyango, notes that he referred to her as "Aunti Zeituni" and his visit to her in 1982. 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. Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic, cites the parade being held on the second Saturday in August since 1929. Barack Obama, Sr.#Kenya, statement that the Obama family questions the paternity of two of Obama's sons with his former wife. Madelyn Dunham, discusses his grandparents' religious views and his interactions with them. 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. 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) Considering that there only appears to be one person who was arguing for not citing Obama's book and they have quit objecting for over a week it appears that the consensus clearly supports citing Obama's Book. As far as I can tell no reading of this discussion even remotely supports removal.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:20, 28 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.

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) Closing the issue is bad and could be misinterpreted by some as censorship. However, it wrong and bias to try to say he is atheist. He is a Christian. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but he is not one. His real religion may be Politics, but that sort of thing can't go in the article because that is commentary. Evergreenme (talk) 04:12, 30 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 Laden 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 deserving 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 . . . William Jockusch (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
            • There's good sourcing that a respected international body accused the subject of the article of serious crimes, and that this was picked up and covered by respected press organisations, yet it is your contention that this is not significant or relevant to the subject of the article. So this section (and I realise now that this is just one example of many in the article) only contains bland positive reaction, with no hint of the controversy and criticism which surrounded the event in the real world. This is what I mean by stonewalling, and this (I imagine) is how the article has come to be so poor. It honestly reads like a puff-piece written by one of his staff at the moment. --John (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
              • Do you mean Obama fanboys writing campaign literature? We have a history of those accusations here, and that didn't end up too well.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Please see FAQ #6-9, above. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
                • Yawn. More stonewalling. --John (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
                  • Do you think that accusation is going to encourage constructive discussion or win me or anyone else to your position? - Wikidemon (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
                    • Do you think that meeting every suggestion for improvement with an ad hominem has led, or will lead, to this article being of a high standard? Honestly? --John (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
                      • I wouldn't know about that. Are you proposing some constructive discussion there? - Wikidemon (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is insane. If you were to list the top 100 things about Barack Obama's life, Amnesty International's opinion of the death of Osama bin Laden would not be in it. We don't even have room for the top 50 things, let alone the top 100. I see no possible way John can win a consensus to include this non thing so I support the close that was earlier proposed below. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree. However we if were to list the top 5 things about what the section is referring to (the killing of Bin Laden), this would probably fit. Arkon (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the AI opinion about the Bin Laden killing is too many steps away to include in a biography about Obama. Put it in the article about the killing, but not here. It is out of place and I believe UNDUE is correct. Shadowjams (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Propose to close

I just noticed this piece of nastiness.[17] I don't think there's anymore to talk about here. Propose to close as rejected / no consensus. No further discussion is worthwhile unless proposing editor can be civil and collaborative about this. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. Sorry if honesty offends you. Practice what you preach. --John (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't soliciting your opinion but I'll strike the proposal. Someone will close this discussion or it will auto-archive soon enough. If you want to build consensus around a proposal next time, "if you disagree with me you're a bunch of finks" is not going to win the argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"POV pushing"

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.

---

A user has seen fit to accuse me of POV pushing over a rather mild recent edit [18]. 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)

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.

Time for a Featured Article Review?

It is time to put this baby to bed. The Featured Article Review process is not to be used or abused because one does not like certain things in an article, those are issues that we handle via normal, simple editing procedures. FAR is to identify and correct major deficiencies in a Featured Article that call into question it still being an FA at all. This ain't that, time to move on. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Indeed, the whole "this article is POV because it doesn't include enough negative stuff about Obama" line of argument spells trouble and isn't a legitimate argument for FAR. If there's anything that should be included but isn't, or is but shouldn't be, let's hear it. But it's pointless to talk about intentionally applying a negative/positive POV shift. That's precisely the wrong way to edit the encyclopedia, and there's a strong enough consensus that we shouldn't be manipulating the criticism level that it's got an entire section in the FAQs (#6 though #9) on this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Incidentally, it's useful to look at the FAR history of the article. The last full review was November 4, 2008 (those after were summarily closed as bad faith nominations), although one editor did attach a new template he was testing out declaring that the December 11, 2011 was a stable version of a featured article.[19] Interestingly, all or nearly all of the FAR were beset with some trolling on the subject of the article supposedly being a pro-Obama whitewash. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Unconstructive subthread started by banned user; feel free to continue constructive discussion below The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. [redacted] Rather than grumble, why not propose specific edits? Assuming that you are acting in good faith, let me state for the record that vague talk about a "saintly image" is a waste of your time; it doesn't help develop consensus for change. We might also question what's the hurry? If the article has been deteriorating for four years, then surely another 100 days will matter little. It's not as if wikipedia has anything like the advertising budget of the political campaigns (...although perhaps Jimmy Wales could approach them for a few crumbs ...) rewinn (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC) [redacted] True. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Back on topic. All talk of fuckwits and conspiracy theories aside, criterion 1b says that the article should be neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias and I would very strongly contend that the article does not currently meet this, as it it applied on Wikipedia in the modern day. The toxic editing environment no doubt contributes to the low quality of the article. The object of a review would be to improve the article and help it to conform to the featured article criteria. It is hard for me to maintain good faith in the face of arguments against reviewing an article which was promoted in 2008 and has not been reviewed since, especially as I start to examine the article in detail and see just how poor the writing is, as well as the 1b concerns. --John (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC) We've heard that song so many times before -- accompanied as here by accusations of bad faith -- that it's hard to keep track. FAR does not seem like a good tool for the questionable goal of biasing the article to add more criticism of its biographical subject, a proposition that has been explicitly rejected multiple times here. Again, see FAQ 6 through 9. If there are specific places where you feel the article may be strengthened, why not propose those here, or if it's a simple uncontroversial matter, just do it. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I have seen this before. When you reach a point where you are finding it "hard to keep track", when you meet any attempt to address problems in the article with allegations of misconduct, when you find it impossible to assume good faith: these are all signs that it is time to step away and let others work on the article. It's a big community, and sometimes an article has become stuck and is as good as the current group of editors can make it. Why are you so afraid of putting it up for wider review? What have you got to lose? --John (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Interestingly, they're having the exact same debate over at the Romney article. People adding and removing dispute tags, proposals to add more criticism, and claims that the article is biased because it's been scrubbed of anti-Romney talking points (Bain, Olympic comments, his dog) by a supposed cabal of Romney supporters. A useful bit of perspective. For what it's worth I would say the same thing here as there, best to resist all that stuff and stick to presenting the events of the person's life in a factual way. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I saw. But there's the rub; "stick to presenting the events of the person's life in a factual way" should not mean presenting only the positive aspects of a subject. --John (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I think you've fallen for a common misconception there. Most noteworthy events in most people's lives are positive, in the sense that they document some kind of milestone or achievement, not the absence of an achievement. We say Bruce Springsteen is a successful singer and songwriter who has sold millions of albums. We don't follow that with "but he is a lousy tennis player, and many people are really tired of his dance moves". The facts of who a person is and what they've done are positive only in the sense that they are the presence of something that counts to the encyclopedic sources rather than its absence, we don't need to get into whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. It's only in the realm of politics that every statement, position, and action of a candidate is met with dueling claims of virtue and fault by supporters and opponents. That's important information, and Wikipedia covers politics too, but this article and Romney's are biographies, not political scorecards. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I think you've also fallen into a misconception. This is an article about a person that -everyone- has an opinion on. There will be counter points to just about every achievement, this can be seen throughout wikipedia on high profile people. Arkon (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC) The best time to evaluate and improve an article is now. Someone mentioned timing of the election. If one is campaigning, timing is important. For Wikipedia, the best time to improve and evaluate an article is now. Also wanting to evaluate an article is not a vote for Romney as Wikipedia is not your local polling station. I am for a FA review and I voted for President Obama. Evergreenme (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Banned user again; feel free to discuss this like adults below The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Yeah, it's just coincidence that this one happens to keep all the negative stuff out of the article or hides it at the bottom of the page or in child articles. No need for political scorecards here, move along citizen. --AConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC) If you have nothing useful to contribute except sarcastic stuff, I respectfully suggest you go back to editing Nobrainapedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I've looked over the comments for and against. Someone called it FAR so I will. The comments against FAR should be looked at the closest since these people are against the normal process. The timing is mentioned but there is the rest of the summer and early fall to have the FAR so that it will be ready for the election, if that is the goal. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an election advertisement, I think, so some may say timing should be ignored. The other point raised was that FAR destabilizes the article. However, FAR improves the article so by saying this, one is proposing a bad article that doesn't change. This logic is certainly wrong. As a result, I conclude that the FAR should start but there be caution to identify fuckwit comments. Evergreenme (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC) FAR is badly needed as article is terribly unbalanced.William Jockusch (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC) That's a strong argument against. FAR isn't a procedural tool for tilting the scales to make an article more disparaging of its subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC) As I understand it, it is a procedural tool for making sure the article fits the FA criteria, which this currently does not, due to its lack of balance. I'm not Grundle; if the article fairly represented the major, mainstream concerns with Obama, I wouldn't be pushing for this. William Jockusch (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC) (undent) Comment from a FAR delegate here, solely on technical aspects, feel free to ignore as you wish: As per the FAR instructions, this talk page step is designed to be a time when "concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.". I see none of that here. Instead, I see several people going "the article sucks" with no examples. I see comments about the prose, with no examples. I see comments about the neutrality, with no examples. FAR is not about summarily delisting articles, it is about improving them if necessary. The talk page step is designed to be a step in which the article can be improved to the point that it doesn't need to go to FAR. There are obviously several editors willing to work on the article, so why not give them the information that you would at a FAR, so they can work on the article? You will be expected to provide specific examples of problems at FAR - generalities and broad sweeps with no specific examples will get you nowhere. Also, content disputes between two groups of editors are not FAR territory - take those to one of the dispute resolution noticeboards, or possibly ArbCom, since the article has already been there once. If everyone says an article is non-neutral, that's FAR territory, if some say it's neutral and some say it isn't, that's ArbCom territory. Again, this step is designed for article improvement and discussion, not for broad sweeping statements that then are not expanded upon when other editors say that they feel a FAR is unwarranted. Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Ideas for improvement OK, here are some areas that should be changed for balance: Budget deficits. Some useful context is available in the Bill Clinton article, which mentions the unusual, remarkable, and frankly amazing budget surpluses that came in the later years of the Clinton Presidency. This was an unusual achievement for a President, and it is entirely appropriate that the article covers the surpluses, with a graph. By the token, the deficits we have seen during the Obama years are greatly out of line with prior Presidencies, and remarkable in the same way that the Clinton surpluses are remarkable. Both the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve have said that the deficits are unsustainable. This situation ought to be explained and covered. The article's employment graph is designed in a promotional, rather than an informational, manner. Other articles relating to unemployment are the articles on Unemployment, the Great Depression, and the Panic of 1893. In each case, the article has a graph or table of the unemployment rate, not of the change in employment. This article, by contrast, has a graph which shows both the unemployment rate and the change in employment. Furthermore, the chosen scales for the axes on the graph, as well as the graphical design, are chosen to highlight the change in employment, rather than the unemployment rate figure. Coincidentally or not, the change in employment is also a statistic that is more Obama-friendly. -- William Jockusch (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC) To be fair, (1) is largely because Republicans have blocked even the most modest of revenue increases. As for (2), why would you want a graph that offers less information to the reader? It would seem that by "balance", you mean fudge it to make it sound better for Republicans. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC) I'm with WJ on this one. True, this brings this article more in line with standard Wikipedia practices, and true, it looks better for Republicans. In truth, neither the rate nor the change, nor both put together, are a complete picture of the unemployment situation. There are plenty of external factors why the budget surplus in the late 1990s wasn't Bill Clinton's doing, unless you count his pal inventing the Internet. Chips fall where they may. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC) William, you brought the graph issue up previously and it was discussed at length. Do you have any new arguments? —Eustress talk 23:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Eustress -- basically, no. Dana Boomer asked how things could be improved, and I answered the question. The one thing that does appear to have changed is that before I felt like a voice in the wilderness on the balance issue, but now it appears to be getting considerable traction on this page.William Jockusch (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Start FAR Starting a FAR is a good idea. What is the first step to starting a FAR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC) The first step is to read the discussion we've been having about it earlier on this talk page and note the consensus to wait until things have settled down. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC) There is no consensus involving Barack Obama FAR at the moment and clearly "concerned editors attempting to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors." That meets the first criteria for FAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC) What exactly does this mean "wait until things have settled down?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Please read the FAR-related discussion above, where that has been fully explained. Also, please sign your comments with four tilde characters ("~~~~"). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC) I have and it is clear that there is no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Everyone agrees that a FAR will be needed, but there is no agreement that now is the time to do it. There are several voices, including my own, that note a FAR procedure will be difficult to deal with as we draw closer to the election because this article will endure increased activity from partisan editors and vandals. Moreover, there is a high probability that the FAR procedure would be abused by those same individuals. Already, there are calls for FAR to be used to create "balance", which is an abuse of the process. The best time to work through FAR is probably in December/January, since they are usually relatively quiet months for this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Once the election hoopla is over will be a better time. There's no pressing concern or need right now as the article is under increased scrutiny and vandalism the closer we get to November 4th. Tarc (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Yes I have already read that and many disagree with it. There is no consensus. Vandals can be reverted and as long as partisan editors follow the policies, I welcome them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Please hold on everyone. I strongly urge any of the involved editors not to add or remove the FAR nomination or to further any FAR process, consensus or no, until we get some guidance. There is no rush here, and edit warring is more disruptive to editing process than simply being patient. If this comes up as an administrative case, do you really want to have to explain why you were edit warring? I'll ask for some help here. Meanwhile, please sit back and take a look at the reasoning behind this comment.[20] Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC) FAR is the way to go, Look at the Israel section...suggestions Dana, the FAR delegate, suggests that FAR should be done when there is consensus to have it. SCJessey admits that practically everyone wants it, it's just timing. My response to Dana is that there is more cooperation to article improvement if there is a FAR because suggestions are shot down if there is no FAR. The excuse can be that "it's a FA so don't change it" to just being ignored and edits removed. Look at even this talk page. I put an edit and quoted an IP user from another country and someone removed them. THIS COULD BE VANDALISM.

Discussion of improving Israel section

So, as a test, here is my suggestion. Totally revamp the Israel foreign policy section. The current version looks like a cheerleading section, trying to make the reader think he should vote for Obama because Obama is for Israel. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Obama's ad agency. The current section covers the following: 1. increased military cooperation with Israel, (even though the reference used actually starts out saying relations with Israel is choppy) 2. In 2011, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements, with the United States being the only nation to do so.[230] 3.Obama supports the two-state solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict based on the 1967 borders with land swaps.[231

If we try to summary 4-5 facts in a revised section, it may be:

1. Obama's relation with Israel is choppy. The relationship with Netanyahu is poor.

1a. Obama even told Sarkozy of France that he has to deal with him everyday. (quote was even worse)

2. Obama was for a 2 state solution but Palestineans were outraged when he did nothing to stop settlements (UN security council resolution)

3. Obama was opposed to Israeli talk of war with Iran.

4. (optional) there is steadily increasing military cooperation. OTOH, it's not that much greater so it may be biased to tout it too much if the section is short.

5. (possible) Obama has never visited Israel as President. CNN mentioned this.

6. (possible) Obama refused to pardon Pollard, the Israeli spy, despite pleas from the Israeli government.

#1 is the most important point. Evergreenme (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You need sources for these claims, most of which are gross distortions. Comment - it saddens me that presidential nominees have to suck up to a belligerent, non-compromising nation with dubious land claims just to win a few votes. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Thanks for getting the ball rolling. Here are some thoughts: #1 - Agreed, there has been some friction, which we should mention as an introduction to some of the details. I'm not familiar enough with the situation and would have to see sourcing to see just how choppy things are, whether Netanyahu is particularly alienated, and whether that's mutual. I doubt the quote about Sarkozy is itself so significant or informative that it actually adds much to the observation. We should also put this in perspective that US is Israel's closest ally and Israel is the closest ally to the US in the region. I think #2 is already in the article, both parts in separate places without a "but". Connectors like "despite", "but", and "however" can hide sneaky introductions of opinion. #3 is very important, the US position (and likely behind-the-scenes work) on Israel and Iran is significant, particularly if there is a strike, war, backdown by Iran, actual development of nukes by Iran, etc., that arises. There was a very informative long article about this earlier in the year, predicting a likelihood of imminent war before the US election - probably not at this point, but some details in the article are probably relevant. #4 is already in the article, but I think it has too much prominence (half of the entire section) - I've boldly cut it down a bit. #5 and #6 not so much, every President has places he hasn't visited. We could fill 100 articles with things Obama has _not_ done. Nobody has pardoned Pollard, this has been a sore point through several administrations. More broadly, Israel and other allies occasionally do conduct espionage in the US and the US continues to go after spies from allied countries. I thought I just read about a new case. Very interesting stuff, but probably not at the level of being biographically relevant to Obama - more apt in a specialized article about foreign relations. There may be a few other things to add, though I'm not sure. Any other US involvement in Israel / Palestine relations, changing relationship with Egypt following the Arab Spring, Syria and Lebanon? Perhaps we should retitle and broaden the section to read "Israel and the Middle East" (but not so wide as to overlap with the sections about Afghan, Libya, and Iraq). Just a side note, it's not helpful to talk about campaign promotion, bias, or disputes among editors, because when people focus on that it's harder for them to get their head around to the content. Thanks again, and cheers. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC) (after edit conflict, respond to SCJessey) Of course everything would need to be backed up by sources. I don't think we have to editorialize about why there is a land conflict with Palestine or who is at fault or intransigent. I seriously thought your comment was blaming Palestine, no joke! You could say the same of both sides probably. The fact is there is a conflict, and the US has taken a role. Vetoing the Security Council resolution, for good or ill, is a major step that surely reflects the will of the Administration. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with #1. There was a "dinner snub" story back in 2010, though parts of it were disputed, and I'm not sure what can be clearly established as being true. [21][22] Certainly this suggests a choppy relationship, to say the least. Plenty of people are convinced that O. and N. hate each other, [23] [24], though the two of them deny it [25]. And it is indisputable that there was plenty of anger in Israel at Obama's treatment of Mubarak [26][27] #6 is not particularly telling, for the reasons Demon mentioned. #5 I am ambivalent on whether it is significant or not. If prior presidents visited frequently, it is significant; if not, not so much. About #3 -- this appears to be significant [28]. William Jockusch (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

None of which has really much to do with this article, and is perhaps better suited for one of the presidency or foreign policy sub-articles. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 3 August 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)

I agree that it would be helpful to come up with some suggestions, Mister IP-editor. But there's nothing wrong with bringing up a matter and asking the community to participate. John is 100% right that this section is stale, so can we update it? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The war in Afghanistan has two or three major components. That Obama ordered a surge and now is trying to withdraw. Whether he is negotiating with the Taliban is far less important unless the section is long and detailed. Evergreenme (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Dog-gate is important to include

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.

---

This is relevant to his bio (Obama and Romney). I added it with 4 references from top notch news sources, including a mention that it is important. To be fair, I also added a similar comment about a similar dog issue to the other candidate's bio.

It is very easy for political supporters to be upset and want it censored. However, it is clearly a big development in the campaign and, therefore, the bio.

Background: Obama ate dog meat and admitted it in his own book. Romney put his dog on a specially made carrier, not inside the car. Evergreenme (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In both cases it's irrelevant political mud dredged up by political opponents. Please don't clutter up this great global encyclopaedia with political trivia which has only surfaced because of an American election campaign. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not appropriate for either article. You are a new account, make suggestions here first. Arkon (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll make suggestions first. It is appropriate because it is a fact (referenced by Obama), it is noted by others (many references available, four noted here), and it is important to Obama, much more important that some of the facts about his administration, which is not always about the man. I admit it is not as important as listing his birthdate or that he is president, but is more important than his August 2006 visit to Kenya to see his hometown (section: Chicago Community Organizer) or that Hillary Clinton endorsed Obama (this is standard practice and the date she did it makes no difference).

Try to make a convincing argument that these two facts are MORE important that an intersting fact about Obama's lifestyle and dietary habits in Indonesia. The dog meat issue was covered far more than his 2006 visit to Kenya or Clinton's endorsement. Evergreenme (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Trying to close a discussion just shows bias as Seb just did.

The bottom line is that this dog fact is NOT a big part of Obama's life. If there is a short article, I agree that it should NOT be in the article. However, as the article becomes long and detailed, then facts of this sort become more important.

One way to objectively decide is not to say "if I am for Obama, I want only positive things and if I am against Obama, I want only negative things." Rather, it is to say "what is the most important things of his life?" If there are other trivial facts, then consider whether the dog fact is equal or more important. If equal or more important, then it should either be included or other less important facts deleted from the article.

My opinion is that this is a slightly relevant issue if his book is mentioned and details of the book mentioned (after the fact that his father was Kenyan). It is certainly MORE important than a mention of a 2006 trip to his father's home town, a very trivial fact that is included in the article. Evergreenme (talk) 04:07, 30 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.

Summary needs footnotes

As found on Mitt Romney's page, this page requires footnotes in the summary in order to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard. Please include these footnotes even if present elsewhere in the article, in order to allow verifiability without the need to search through the article. Viridium (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, this is unnecessary. Tag removed. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Obama and religion

I've NPOV-ed this segment, and it needs watching over. There was a link to 'black liberation theology' a page that contains false, thinly disguised America-hatred overtones, suggesting Islamists are practitioners. On Mr. Obama's page, this is an inaccurate and incendiary link.

In addition, dog-eating is a non-topic, as cultures around the world dine on cats, dogs, horses, snakes, possums, armadillos, goats, bunny rabbits, and guinea pigs. An Introduction to Anthropology course is recommended for anyone who thinks dog-eating rises to the level of a topic that is appropriate. KSRolph (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fix the 'black liberation theology' page if it has inaccurate information. That's not a reason to remove it from this article, when it is factually correct. Arkon (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask, why is it biographically necessary to link to the black liberation theology article? Do we routinely link to the theology of the churches attended by other individuals in BLPs? I endorse KSRolph's edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally liken it to any specific church that a public person has gone to with, say, catholic churches. JFK etc. And honestly, is a church name sufficient in any way by itself in a biography? The point is information, which the theology then provides. Arkon (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, "Protestant" is the correct explanation, not "black liberation theology". My nose is catching the faint whiff of racism about this. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

On first review I think it's relevant. Even if that article isn't a great one, it does give some additional background that's relevant to the church and informative to the reader. The article clearly says that the movement exists both in Christian and Islamic groups. Granting that there's a tinge of racism in some people's reaction to certain facts about Obama, that shouldn't affect us either way in covering those facts. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, "Protestant" doesn't begin to give the full picture. As someone who was raised in a 'Southern Baptist' church, I appreciate the differentials. Arkon (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

One big question, though, is whether the "black liberation" descriptor is a salient and defining characteristic of the church. Reading the article about the church, it appears no. The main things in the lede are that it's an African-American Church, that it's in Chicago's South Side, that it's part of the United Church of Christ, and that it's early history involved the Civil Rights Movement. So perhaps labeling it a BLC may be something of a WP:COATRACK. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Christianity" is too broad. The Infobox should identify the branch of Christianity of which Obama is a follower/member. SMP0328. (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice. But he has deaffiliated himself from the UCC because of the Wright issue, and the best sources we have (I admit I haven't looked for updated ones in quite a while) say he primarily attends a non-denominational chapel – currently serve by, IIRC, a Baptist minister – so it's difficult to be more specific. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is, really, a quick look through shows that the pastor himself is responsible for much if not all of the labeling. The discussion still belongs on that page though. Arkon (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is racism in a linked, stated concept coupling Mr. Obama to Black Liberation Theology, it fuels misinformation about Mr. Obama's beliefs and affiliations in a nation with some strongly anti-Islamic communities; the rules in Wikipedia are to stick to the facts. This means avoiding conjecture and - without complete or factual information - generating pseudo-data for use in 'connecting dots' for an audience; to do so is misleading and dangerous. Rather than spend my time correcting the Black Liberation Theology page, I'd like to survey other American presidents and see what information about their religion is stated and quoted. Let's be systematic in these matters. We are duty bound to respect one another on this forum and to respect living persons. NPOV objectivity is the goal here, use of language is powerful, and we are not journalists, but rather encyclopediaists. We should avoid the self-gratifying impulse to add meaningful little tweaks that lead an audience to read into the information something that is not supported by evidence. Please back me up wise colleagues, we should say less, not more on this particular complex issue. Arkon, too, thank you for your suggestions, come on over to this side of the discussion, please. KSRolph (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Presidents and right-hand column on Religion: Having had a look at Mr. Bush Jr. - all that is mentioned is: Episcopal until 1977 and thereafter, Methodist. Mr. Clinton it only says: Baptist. They have no text section dedicated to their religiosity. As for Mr. Obama and 'Christianity,' I too find it too broad, and if Baptist seems too specific, then Protestant Christian is one suggestion, or follow the lead of Mr. Bush Jr. and state 'Church of Christ' until 2008, and Baptist thereafter. Mr. Obama is a Protestant. KSRolph (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's compare. Do you know who "Mr. Bush Jr."'s pastor is? Has he had coverage in many major reliable sources, consistently? Is he referenced when talking about "Episcopalians"? I trust that I don't need to go further. Arkon (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What I mean by being systematic, is not one, not two, but a look at several presidents, comparatively. KSRolph (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge

A Twitter account is giving undue weight for a whole article and as this Twitter business is not even mentioned at all in the Barack Obama article it should be summarized and merged.

• To participate in the discussion please go to Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter#Merge to Barack Obama.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tag. It's not a viable proposal, and leaving that tag there unnecessarily exposes the many non-editor readers of the article with an obscure bit of Wikipedia process. Any regular editor here will see it on their watch list. Meanwhile, there's an RfC and a DRV discussion about that article, including proposals to merge it into various Obama-related topics. They have to run their course before it's even an issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Several edit requests and corrections

Professional: lawyer

A better name here is attorney. See also wikipedia what describe for attorney "Attorney at law or attorney-at-law, usually abbreviated in everyday speech to attorney, is the official name for a lawyer in certain jurisdictions, including, Japan, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and the United States." and also what currently we write in main article: "He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago". You are using nowhere else in the article the lawyer word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.187.160 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's correct. The way it was explained to me, anyone with a law degree or the equivalent is a lawyer. Someone who engages in the profession of getting paid to do law work for others is an attorney. Many politicians are lawyers. Most are not, currently, practicing attorneys (but Obama was for a number of years). - Wikidemon (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Members of the bar are lawyers. Attorney is a more generic term for people that represent someone. Hence, attorney at law, versus power of attorney, etc. "Lawyer" would be correct and is the convention. Shadowjams (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

New Party

Edit request on 30 July 2012

i would like to edit this page for a truthful reason, obama is a former new party member, needs to be put in page, thank you

Mycamaguay (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but right-wing smear campaigns aren't welcome on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Or to put it more gently, you can find some more background about this at New Party and its associated talk page, and Stanley Kurtz, the writer who has been talking about this. The question has been discussed here and on other pages relating to Obama, and the consensus among editors is that there is not enough sourcing to establish that the claim is significant, or particularly relevant to the President's biography, much less that it is actually true. Indeed, the claim's currency is almost entirely among sources devoted to disparaging the President. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

To put it even more gently to our asker, the multiple original sources documenting Obama's NP involvement do reasonably pass the tests of truth and verifiability; however, various editors around here have dug in their heels and refused to permit inclusion, explaining for the most part that they don't like the messenger -- because Kurtz, while a Harvard trained Ph.D., has committed the sin of being a conservative, and those who have given this airtime in major newspapers are mostly conservative, that therefore the NP minutes must have been forged or something, even though nobody out there has made that claim... or something like that. It gets rather vague when you get down to the details of their objections. Wookian (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

At least my reply had the virtues of brevity and accuracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And not encouraging new editors to approach a consensus process with assumptions of bad faith. - 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

An example of an assumption of bad faith would be to immediately write off credible, alleged factual information unfavorable to Obama as a "right wing smear campaign". Wookian (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And if it was credible, alleged factual information you would be right. But it isn't, so you aren't. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, who do you think forged the meeting minutes, membership roster, and event announcements? I presume you have performed original research, since I haven't read anything on the internet about this. Also, perhaps you should share your discoveries of the forgery with the Washington Post and various other major newspapers that have given airtime to Kurtz's discovery. Those publications would certainly be dismayed to have given airtime to a forgery. So pray share your discoveries with others. Oh, wait, I forgot. You are opposing this because Kurtz is conservative, not because there is any credible reason to doubt his well documented original sources. So nevermind. Wookian (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is getting a little long and winding. As a content proposition, adding this material does not have much support, among other reasons because it's thinly sourced. But still, don't WP:BITE any newbies either, or use the page as a platform for accusations against those who do. Respect on all sides! - Wikidemon (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Misspelling

The first line says that "barack and obama redirect here" but in the blue barack link the name is misspelled. someone fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.185.71 (talk • contribs)

The "Barak" spelling is intentional. It is not a misspelling. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Study: Obama related to first slave

Please add: "Obama is the 11th great-grandson of the first documented African slave in the U.S.." ref: http://edition.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/us/2012/07/30/tsr-sylvester-obama-ancestry.cnn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.174.16 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Trivia, not really worth mentioning here. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, interesting to know, but if you do enough genealogy you can find dozens of significant or famous people related to anyone and we'd fill up the whole article with this kind of thing. You know he's George W Bush's 11th cousin and Dick Cheney's 8th cousin, right?[29] - Wikidemon (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And if you go back fourteen (?) generations you've probably got about 5,000 grandparents. It's not unlikely everyone who has American lineage dating back to the 16th century has a black ancestor, and probably a Native American ancestor too. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

And if you go back even further, you'd find he's related to Adam and Eve. Spoooookieeee--JOJ ^Hutton 00:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I request that the above comments is removed per DFTT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.80 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not reject this out of hand as trivia. We make the declarative statement "Obama is also not a descendant of American slaves" in "Cultural and political image" and we mention his mother's genealogy in the end of the first paragraph of "Personal life". We might wait and see if this research generates any significant notice, but we may need to modify what we say here, at least in a note. A properly worded mention could also be made in Family of Barack Obama "Distant relations" section and possibly in Public image of Barack Obama. This fact, if it is a fact, clearly had no impact on his upbringing, but we don't know what, if any, impact the information will have now that it is known. Tvoz/talk 15:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Is pronunciation of Barack Obama needed?

I do not feel it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.65.60 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess it's there because it's not an English-Language name, huh. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is needed. I've heard both names being mispronounced quite often. For a long time, my countrymen said BUR-ACK OH-BAMMA until they'd been educated by Wikipeda. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Whats wrong with saying BUR-ACK OH-BAMMA? YOu mean the second to last a is long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

People in the UK were saying Barack so it sounded like "attack", and Obama so it sounded like the end of "Alabama". That obviously isn't correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

List of what has been discussed

Someone mentioned that the figure has already been extensively discussed. Can you generate a list of other things that have been extensively discussed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ALso update the faq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What, specifically, about the FAQ needs to be updated?--JayJasper (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ needs to be updated to reflect the topics extensively discussed like the figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.47.138 (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The figure? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable and ridiculous deletion

I've written only "Should be include his opinions" and the answer was: "Not a forum" from the user "The Magnificent Clean-keeper". This is raising many red flags for me. You and other such user should stop their unnacceptable behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.58.206 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You were suggesting that a YouTube article about a six year old telling people not to vote for Obama might be a good idea. It was a complete waste of time since there was no chance of that ever being included for various reasons so I don't see anything as unacceptable about the removal.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't go overboard trying to convince the reader than Obama is not a Muslim.

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.

---

The last section about religion is poorly written. It is so lengthy, almost trying to prove to the reader that Obama is a Christian. It even makes no mention that he is accused of being a Muslim.

Anyone whose read the news knows that Obama has been accused of being a Muslim. To ignore it is ignoring the elephant in the room.

I've fixed the section. I've trimmed it, taking out long quotes trying to prove that he is a Christian. Instead, it simply states that he says he is. Then I added a Washington Post reference that says that people have accused him of being a Muslim (but I don't make those wild claims). Then the 2nd paragraph is left as it is.

If you go overboard and shout "Obama is Christian", you make the readers think "Wikipedia must be trying to hide the truth". Part of his bio is that people accuse him of being a Muslim. George Tupou VII (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

saying "Muslim" is not an "accusation". This section is a non-starter. Try again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:23, 3 August 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.

Sorry to comment on a closed discussion, but I agree with the original poster's observation, if not their proposed edit to the main page. Whether you call it an accusation, smear, conspiracy theory, or whatever is a semantic issue. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but the claim that Obama is a Muslim is intended as something negative by those who make it. If someone were unaware of the fringe claims that Obama is Muslim, it simply reads to be somewhat redundant. However, viewed in light of those claims, it could easily strike a reader (and it strikes me) as defensive. There are similar overkill issues occasionally in the articles on the religion and citizenship conspiracy theories. I think the section could be improved without taking out any of its informational content by simply reducing the number of times it says Obama is Christian by one or two. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

but the claim that Obama is a Muslim is intended as something negative by those who make it. is paranoia and a disservice to our readers. No comment on the rest. Arkon (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I don't get that drift. Perhaps it's motivated by paranoia, plus some fear, ignorance and xenophobia. Our readers are on the main page, not here. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

For consideration

Article seems pretty strict on making additions, so I don't want to fall foul. Here, then, are a few recent things for consideration:

"During his last year at Columbia, and at a low-level corporate job that followed, Obama brooded over his need to acquire a black identity—a sign was the copy of Ellison's Invisible Man which he took with him everywhere. He had never thought of himself as black before. The two girlfriends of those years whom Maraniss has traced, and an unnamed third in his first year in Chicago, were white, and so were many of his friends."
Bromwich, David (5 July 2012). "Diary". London Review of Books. 34 (13): 42–43. Retrieved 4 August 2012.
<ref>{{cite journal |last= Bromwich |first= David |authorlink= David Bromwich |date= 5 July 2012 |title= Diary |url= http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n13/david-bromwich/diary |journal= [[London Review of Books]] |volume= 34 |issue= 13 |pages= 42–43 |accessdate= 4 August 2012 }}</ref>

Goldstein, Bonnie (30 July 2012). "Obama descended from slave ancestor, researchers say". She The People. WashingtonPost.com. Retrieved 4 August 2012.
<ref>{{cite web |last= Goldstein |first= Bonnie |date= 30 July 2012 |title= Obama descended from slave ancestor, researchers say |url= http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/obama-descended-from-slave-ancestor-researchers-say/2012/07/30/gJQAUw4BLX_blog.html |work= She The People |publisher= [[The Washington Post|WashingtonPost.com]] |accessdate= 4 August 2012 }}</ref>

Skirtsy ^{My talkEdits} 14:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)