Talk:Barack Obama

Image description

Before someone ends up blocked for WP:3RR... Shouldn't the alt text at least identify Obama by name? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I went to WP:ALT to see exactly what the purpose of it is, but it doesn't seem to be clear on whether it should be written for an audience text-readers or for the blind, or both. So I'm not really sure atm which way this should go. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Read it and it is unclear, and different from wheat was explained earlier. Dave Dial (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:ALT#Importance_of_context and the Blair/Bush example? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ALT is not clear, so can we try a little common sense here? Seems right that alt text should physically describe the individual to benefit vision-impaired people, but there's no reason to leave off the person's name, nor does it have to be dumbed down. Why not say something like "Barack Obama, a middle-aged African American male, smiling and standing with his hands folded in front of a desk and two flags. He is a wearing a navy blue suit and a light blue tie with white dots." Tvoz/talk 01:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Cultural and political image

Regarding the sentence that says: "According to November 2013 polls, Obama's average approval rating fell to 41%, thus setting a new low for the president." This seems a bit out of place the way it is in this section. Wouldn't it make more sense to put this right after the sentence talking about his poll numbers after his second inauguration? The rest of the section details his image in foreign countries, so the sentence seems kind of wonky the way it is now. Twyfan714 (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Facts

Barack Obama was born the year of the first freedom ride and was two years old when Martin Luther King gave his I have a dream speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.48.129 (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So was my mother as they are the same age >3 months apart. Doubt my mother or Obama will remember MLK's speech from that time. Somchai Sun (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, even if he was old enough to remember the speech it would not be very relevant for an article about Obama as a person.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No Critical Views Allowed

I just spent an hour skimming the Wiki articles of each president the US has had. These articles typically refer to actions, responses, and policies of the president, along with a description of how these events were received by the public, and how the president's popularity was affected. Notably, the article on Barack Obama is missing any information about the critical response many of his actions have received. This article reads like a campaign website, listing all of his "achievements" along with far too many legislative details, with little information about the history of how these things happened, or what resulted from them.

Of note, the section on the 2010 midterms is a single sentence, and omits any mention of WHY Obama was so unpopular in 2010, and about how his 2010 legislative policies were received. The section on the 2012 elections omits any mention of HOW he won the election, or what sort of campaign message he was leveling against his opponent. The section on "health care reform" mentions far too many legislative details (that could easily be gleaned by reading the page on PPACA), while omitting any mention of what sort of criticisms were leveled against the policy, how it has affected Obama's popularity, or how the implementation of the new health care system was handled.

Furthermore, there is no mention of the IRS targeting scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the many court cases against Obama's executive overreach, the fact that Obama was held in contempt by a federal court, the fact that Obama created the largest and most intrusive domestic surveillance operation in human history, his racially-motivated comments and policies, or the fact that he has been so widely and openly criticized as a totalitarian, a socialist, a fascist, and other labels for authoritarian philosophies. These types of facts are a major focus of the articles for previous presidents, and were certainly a dominant component of the page on George W. Bush during his presidency.

The level of president-saluting sterilization in this article is positively Orwellian. TBSchemer (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As an example of this Orwellian cleansing, I included a series of polls showing that Obama is "the most divisive and polarizing president in history" in the first-term legacy section, and the change was rapidly reverted by Tarc. This leaves the section as a paragraph of praise from academics, with little general-public polling data. The reversion can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=603081323&oldid=603080058 TBSchemer (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Far too much of your own politics is on display in those posts for your comments to be considered in any way as objective and constructive suggestions for improving the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh I've tried to point out the many flaws in this article over the years and to no avail. I hope you have better luck than I did, or better than the countless accounts that have been blocked or banned over the years for pointing this out as well. JOJ ^Hutton 02:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone came here with a clearly neutral point of view and made explicit, non-POV suggestions for improving the article, they might get somewhere. That is not the case with this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, your dislike of people's politics is not an argument. If you can't respond to his points you don't need to respond. —Designate (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea what my political views are, and that's precisely how it should be. During the most recent presidential election campaign I was attacked by supports of both major candidates as being a supporter of the other side. I was proud of that. TBSchemer's political views are far too obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reasonable objection to the inclusion of this poll or not? TBSchemer (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, this page is for discussing the article. He's discussing the article. You're discussing him. There's no policy that requires people to pretend not to have opinions and there never has been, so your complaints belong in another forum. —Designate (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I object to most opinion polling most of the time. People generally only want them added if they think they support their political position. The only way in which they could ever be included, IMHO, is when the precise question(s) that were asked are listed, and no editorial interpretation is made of the results. That's clearly not the case here. I suspect that the word "polarizing" was never part of the poll. As an example of misinterpretation, it could be argued that Republicans hated Obama because he was doing such a good job it made it harder for them to get rid of him. I actually don't know. Do you? So, if you must include polls.... Present the question(s). Present the results. And stop there. Better still, ignore mid-term polls. They prove nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

But if you object to most opinion polling, then doesn't that mean you also object to the polls of academics that already comprise the entire section we're discussing? Would you rather have that whole section removed? What about the need to describe the public response to the president's most influential policies, as is done in all the articles for every previous president? TBSchemer (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to see most of that polling stuff gone. It looks like cherry-picking anyway. If you can find a very well run poll that truly describes the public (Which public?) response to the president's most influential policies (How will you decide which they are?), maybe we can discuss its inclusion, but only in the way I described above. Precise question(s) listed. No editorial interpretation. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. The edit was clearly a partisan WP:POV edit. Designate, you should take your own advice. We are not, with Wikipedia's voice, making the claims that TBSchemer wants in the article. Orwellian sterilization.....Come on now. Dave Dial (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So you refuse to have any critical views included in the article on Barack Obama? You want the page to remain a discussion of how many accomplishments Obama has achieved, and how many people he has insured, and how good were the intentions of his bailout, and how many university professors he has impressed, with no mention of the results of his policies, the public response, his impact on partisan polarization, or any of his many scandals? The article, as it stands right now, is horribly WP:POV, representing the views of those who voted for the guy, while selectively omitting the facts understood by those who didn't. TBSchemer (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So does anyone here have an interest in seeing this article become more of a historical account and less of a campaign page, or am I the only one? TBSchemer (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I reject your assertion that the article reads like a "campaign page". I think part of the problem here is that you seem to want to shoehorn ficticious, non-existent "scandals" and right-wing garbage into the article:

• The IRS "targeted" all political groups equally, as is part of their remit.
• Benghazi was a tragedy, not a scandal. Everything was done that could be done, and there was no coverup.
• "Executive overreach" is a right-wing canard. Obama has exercised his right to issue executive orders on far fewer occasions than recent presidents (including Bush).
• "The largest and most intrusive domestic surveillance operation in human history" was created by George W. Bush.
• What racially motivated comments/policies?
• He's been "openly criticized as a totalitarian, a socialist, a fascist, and other labels for authoritarian philosophies" only by low information voters (morons, basically) and right-wing ideologues. You can seemingly conflicting labels like "weak" and "dictatorial" to this ludicrous list of yours, if you wish.

All of these are simply nonsense, and including such limp-wristed garbage in this article would make Wikipedia into a laughing stock. There's already a wiki to satisfy your needs, and I respectfully suggest you take this stuff to there instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing fictitious about the events I'm describing. They were all widely reported in plenty of reliable sources.

• The IRS targeting scandal was factual enough to get its own Wikipedia article. If it's good enough for Wikipedia, it's good enough for Wikipedia. So why do you refuse to allow these crucial facts about Obama's presidency to be placed on Obama's Wiki page?
• The Obama administration "knowingly misled the country" about Benghazi, according to the reliable sources cited on the Benghazi scandal Wiki article. Why shouldn't such a significant event in his presidency be included on his page?
• Executive overreach, like taking us to war in Libya without Congressional approval, like changing by decree the legislatively-established dates of implementation for Obamacare, like the plethora of unconstitutional actions he has taken while in office. Why shouldn't such significant, abuses of power, recognized by the Supreme Court, be mentioned on this page?
• The Patriot Act did not apply to US citizens. Obama's version of the PRISM program spies on everyone. Even if you dispute this version of events, why shouldn't the fact that Obama has operated the largest domestic surveillance program in history be included on this page?
• Racially motivated comments, like those on Trayvon Martin, or his new race-based preferences program.
• Really? I think in light of all of the above, the fact that Obama has been widely, and quite accurately criticized as a totalitarian is quite relevant to his historical identity.

So why are you against including these facts in an article that's supposed to represent a neutral view of the history of Obama, and not just the cleansed version that his campaign staff want the world to see?

TBSchemer (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you know anybody who thinks Obama is OK? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. TBSchemer (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@TBSchemer Let me address your comment point-by-point as before:

• The IRS "scandal" got a lot of coverage, so it warrants a Wikipedia article; however, it has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama or the office of the Presidency. The head of the IRS at the time of the "targeting" was a Bush appointee. And, in fact, the only group that failed to win tax exempt status as a result of the additional focus was a progressive group.
• There is no "Benghazi scandal" Wikipedia article. You have linked to what we call a "malicious redirect". There was no scandal, and no misleading of anyone. The so-called "reliable source" you quote was Stephen Hayes (Dick Cheney's biographer) writing in the neocon Weekly Standard, and so we can safely ignore his radical right-wing opinion piece for the trash journalism that it is.
• Again, your "abuses of power" claim is not backed up by any reliable sources, and the notion is generally considered to be ridiculous by any thinking person.
• You obviously have no understanding of what the Patriot Act is. And PRISM was launched by the NSA in 2007 under President Bush.
• Obama's comments about Trayvon Martin were not "racially motivated", as you persist on calling it. And calling the My Brother's Keeper Task Force a "race-based preferences program" smacks of racism to me. The White House is simply trying to address the problem of disadvantaged young black men getting into trouble. Other programs exist for other demographics, but you are strangely silent on those.
• Perhaps you should read Totalitarianism. You will see that is bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to Obama or his Presidency. That is just ridiculous right-wing bullshit from the conservative lunatic fringe.

Clearly you are only here to promote an agenda, which regular Wikipedian's frown on. This article does reflect a neutral point of view, and editors go to great lengths and considerable effort to make sure of that. Perhaps you don't actually understand the concept of neutrality. In what universe is blaming Obama for the activities of the independent IRS "neutral", for example? It isn't about finding the political center, or trying to balance out the good with the bad. It is about reflecting what is covered in a preponderance of reliable sources in appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• The IRS scandal happened in the Executive Branch controlled by Barack Obama, and was partially handled by Barack Obama, until he began stating that "there is no there there." Tell me, were the scandals in the administration of Warren G. Harding relevant to his presidency? If so, then why shouldn't the scandals in the Obama administration be relevant to Obama's presidency?
• There was indeed a Benghazi scandal. The wiki article I linked you to describes how Susan Rice ended up lying to the entire country about the Benghazi tragedy, turning it into a scandal. Are you in denial about these facts reported in reliable sources?
• Your No True Scotsman fallacy rings hollow here. The search I linked you to digs up unconstitutional actions by this administration reported by CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, FOX, National Review, Washington Times, Huffington Post, The Guardian, Politico, Reason, Washington Post, and more. Yet, not a single one of these unconstitutional actions so much as gains a mention on this wiki article. Are you going to try to claim that all of these sources are unreliable? The complete absence of ANY of this information on the wiki page for Barack Obama is a complete WP:POV disaster. If you can't see that, then you do not seem interested in presenting a neutral view of history.
• I repeat myself: Even if you dispute this version of events, why shouldn't the fact that Obama has operated the largest domestic surveillance program in history be included on this page?
• You're saying it's racist to point out that a race-based program is racist? Are you insane? Are you being paid by OFA to spread their lies or something? I'm done responding to these demagogic personal attacks.

You very clearly have NO INTEREST in WP:NPOV, and only seek to maintain this article as a campaign site. Anyone who has followed this conversation can see that very clearly. Whether you're a paid campaign official, or are just a fanatical partisan, your opinion has been noted, and it will be ignored from here on out.

TBSchemer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As a new wikipedia member and as someone who unfortunately read this chat, I can see very clearly that your ideology has compromised your ability to edit, TBSchemer. 1st Corinthians 11:9 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As a new wikipedia member, you can be forgiven for the error, but in the future, please discuss how to improve the article, rather than trying to ascertain the ideology and character of the editors. TBSchemer (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• ________

The POV problems with this article are serious and real. If any editors are interested in having a truly civil discussion about the POV problems with this article, please do so here, and refrain from personal attacks. WP:PERSONAL TBSchemer (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• To start with, shouldn't there be some mention here of the many actions by the Obama administration that have been ruled unconstitutional? Isn't it a POV issue to report only favorable court rulings, and none of the unfavorable ones?

Please discuss here. TBSchemer (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, cutting across all of the President's actions from the point of view of the frequency that courts find against them on constitutional grounds is a filter that is beyond the scope of this article. Setting aside the question of what it means, if true, there just doesn't seem to be anything at that level of meta analysis that stands out as particularly noteworthy. Court rulings that affect major Presidential policy initiatives, such as the one on Obamacare, probably do pass the threshold on an individual basis. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the fact that Obama continues to operate the largest domestic surveillance program in human history be mentioned on this page? Isn't it a POV issue to exclude this important, and well-established fact?

Please discuss here. TBSchemer (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Obama isn't operating it, it seems to be the province of the NSA and to some extent other agencies. Obama's involvement if any and his take on it may be relevant in the long run but it seems to early to tell - Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"You very clearly have NO INTEREST in WP:NPOV, and only seek to maintain this article as a campaign site. Anyone who has followed this conversation can see that very clearly. Whether you're a paid campaign official, or are just a fanatical partisan, your opinion has been noted, and it will be ignored from here on out." - Actually, one could say this could also apply to you TBSchemer. Heck I'm neutral here and try not to have an opinion on Obama (Although the birth place/religious conspiracy theories are complete and utter garbage!) but it's basically a 1v1 argument of people with different views. You're never going to agree, so just stick to policy and procedure here. If you think there is a serious issue here, take it up on another board here or something where it can be looked at with greater scrutiny. --Somchai Sun (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The NSA is an executive branch agency controlled by Barack Obama, correct? TBSchemer (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The NSA operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, and reports to the Director of National Intelligence (currently James Clapper). Obama's control over the NSA is no different from Obama's control over any other government agency. While the executive has some control over the department, oversight comes from Congress. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

After calling me racist, Scjessey, your input is not welcome. Is there anyone else who objects to the fact that the NSA is an executive branch agency controlled by Barack Obama? TBSchemer (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do for the same reason as Scjessey. You are just wanting to push your pov agenda and are grasping at straws. Also remember we build a consensus and Scjessey is allowed to comment as much as he likes. Or will you listen to me when I would tell you, your input is not welcome here anymore? If the answers is no, then you know why it does not Jive. If the answer is yes, then consider yourself being told now. NathanWubs (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in having this discussion with Scjessey, who demonstrated he is only interested in demagoguery when he accused me of racism (aren't such insinuations a direct violation of WP policy?). TBSchemer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The executive branch that Barack Obama was elected to control has everything to do with Barack Obama. The president controls the executive branch through executive orders and political appointments. If anything in the "Domestic Policy" section beyond his signatures is relevant to Barack Obama, the fact that he is running the largest domestic surveillance program in human history most certainly is. TBSchemer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just my two cents: If George W. Bush can have, "Some pundits labeled Bush 'the worst president ever'" in his article without there being much of a fuss, then Obama should at least have more info on criticism. Either that, or if people don't want to include criticism (which it seems like most people here are wanting) then that should be taken out of Bush's article. My point is that Wikipedia should not have a bias on either side, and we need a balancing of this kind of thing in order to ensure that. Having a political debate on this talk page doesn't solve anything. You may agree or disagree with the criticism leveled at Obama, but that's no reason to keep it out. The sentence could say, "Obama's critics assert...yada yada yada" to be clear that they are others' opinions. Again that's just my opinion. Oh and one more thing: please let's try and be civil to one another. Resorting to personal attacks does nothing but hurt people's feelings. Twyfan714 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion topic is repeated periodically, and is referenced in the FAQs: it's not encyclopedic to add criticism just for the sake of adding criticism or trying to "balance" things. Balance is not the same as neutrality, in fact it's the opposite of neutrality because it's a deliberate attempt to inject more of one POV versus another. The very idea that a politician should be made to look no better or worse than a counterpart from a rival American party, is not aligned with the function of an encyclopedia. Might as well balance the pros and cons of Jesus and Buddha, or Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney. Having this discussion once a month is tolerable even if it never goes anywhere. People are sensitive because this discussion used to come up every several days, in a hostile way, often from fake accounts. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet, populating an article with praise, while omitting any facts that were highly criticized is not neutral at all. A neutral view would include the fact that Obama runs the largest domestic surveillance program in human history. A neutral view would include the fact that Obamacare tanked his approval ratings. A neutral view would include the fact that the original Obamacare website launch was plagued with technical problems that were not resolved until months later, necessitating a 4-month extension of the enrollment deadline. These are not matters of opinion- they are simple facts that are known by people of all political colors, even if some want to bury it under the rug. TBSchemer (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Obamacare website having technical problems has nothing to do with Obama himself. So if you would want that included you should go to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act wikipedia page to do so. Or are you going to pull Obama his responsibility even further till the point that if you litter a candy wrapper on the street its Obama his fault? NathanWubs (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The executive branch that Barack Obama was elected to control has everything to do with Barack Obama. The president controls the executive branch through executive orders and political appointments. If anything in the "Health Care Reform" section beyond his signature is relevant to Barack Obama, the failure of the website most certainly is. TBSchemer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Legacy of first term / Evaluations of first term

In the previous thread, there was a proposal agreed upon by at least two people to remove this section entirely, on the grounds that it consists entirely of cherry-picked polls, and polls are difficult to represent fairly in a WP:NPOV way. Do we have consensus on this proposal? TBSchemer (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not? I thought you were the one who initially argued that polls probably shouldn't be in the article? TBSchemer (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Because I'm sick of your shallow, POV ridden misrepresentation of sources, and now me. I said "I'd be happy to see most of that polling stuff gone." You now say that I've agreed with you to remove this section entirely. There is a significant difference. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Which polls would you keep, and which would you throw out? TBSchemer (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I can envisage this section being improved slightly, but certainly there is no consensus to remove it entirely. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because, as demonstrated in the previous thread, you are only interested in promoting Barack Obama's image and throwing accusations of racism against all who mention inconvenient facts about him. TBSchemer (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I will welcome input from other editors on how to make this section WP:NPOV. Simply, please refrain from WP:PERSONAL attacks. Don't throw around accusations of racism. TBSchemer (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

These are my thoughts:

• Perhaps the section itself should be deleted as Wikipedia:Too soon? I recognize that essay (not even a guideline) refers to articles as a whole, but I think it could apply to this section.
• It seems very difficult, without the benefit of more time and reliable work by historians, to judge the 1st term of a sitting president without having to present contrasting views. I'm sure reliable sources could be found to juxtapose the points presented in that section. Is that really what we want in this article? I.e., one subsection with reliably sourced positive statements, and another with reliably sourced negative assessments?

Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I think that section could probably just be removed for now. Wait for a more historical look and add detail then. Perhaps there is another article that can be added to now, but I don't really care enough to look around. Besides, it was just added a few days ago, without discussion. Dave Dial (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It does seem both premature to talk of the legacy, and also stale to cover the first term in isolation. The polls there are weak, Presidential legacies are usually not determined by vote. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit anachronistic to record the legacy of a president who remains in office. I would be fine with removing it. On the other hand, since the intention of that section seems to have been to list several opinion polls, would it be worth trying to convert that section into a general "Public Response" section? Perhaps, this section could cite sources that describe how various policies and events in Obama's presidency affected his polling among various groups. TBSchemer (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest deletion. Not only is doing so easiest, but, from a practical perspective, your proposal would involve a lot of drama with low results. As I noted in my initial comment, if I understand your proposal, we'd end up with a two-subsection section, one with "Public Response - Negative" and the other with "Public Response - Positive". This answer seems as premature as what's there now, as well as not encyclopedic. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus position is to remove this section. I have made the change. TBSchemer (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly OK with the change. I would have done so myself, but was going to wait a little longer. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Much too soon to delete this section on the basis of one user's consent. There are at least 5-6 editors who emphatically disagree with you concerning this section in the four (4) sections above. Nor have you answered one of the basic issues which is If all of the presidents who have completed at least one full term of Presidency all have a Legacy subsection, then why are you singling out Barack Obama and excluding him from having one? FelixRosch (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The change was made after 4 editors expressed agreement, and nobody had yet put forward any reasons to disagree. I don't think George W. Bush had a "Legacy" section while he was still in office. Still, if we do include a legacy section for the Barack Obama article, it needs to include more than just favorable reviews from a limited set of academics. For instance, the polls demonstrating that Barack Obama is the most polarizing and divisive president in US history, as well as his job approval ratings are crucial for the sake of accurately and neutrally framing Barack Obama's place in history. As it stands right now, this section represents a very biased POV. TBSchemer (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The section seems neutral enough to me, however in this case a discussion over its neutrality would be prudent as the section is new. As per George W. Bush, he did have a similar section under the subheading of "Public Views and Perception", as can be found in diffs including this one from September 2008 (and earlier). It is not an indexed subtitle so you'll have to scroll down to it. So there is precedent. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't a neutral section also include job approval ratings, as well as exceptional records, such as the fact that Barack Obama has been demonstrated to be the most polarizing president in US history? TBSchemer (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

TBSchemer - I have a hypothetical for you to think about. If someone who hated Democrats and hated black people, and was obsessed with proving Obama was a really bad man, and who could write in a manipulative manner, came here and wanted to get some negative stuff in the Obama article, it's likely that they would write a lot of similar stuff to what you have written. That would mean that those whose goal is truly NPOV would immediately become suspicious. Now, I will assume good faith and say I don't think you are such a person, but can you see how your posts are beginning to look? HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, do you believe that a neutral article about a human subject necessarily has absolutely zero negative stuff in it? It's just all positive stuff? Is that what you're claiming is neutral? TBSchemer (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Try to think about this from the perspective of someone who comes to this article looking to learn about Barack Obama. With the article as it is now, are they going to learn why 40% of the country admires him? Probably. Are they going to learn why 55% of the country hates him? Not at all. From this article, they probably wouldn't even realize that anyone disapproves of his policies, let alone a solid majority. That is a clear sign of a article with serious problems. TBSchemer (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Tags

The procedure for tagging an article with "pov" or whatever has, IMO, been followed correctly; a user brings a concern to the talk page and tags the section or article as warranted. What's bad is either "drive-by tagging" (no discussion) or "badges of shame" (tags left for months). Neither has happened here, so just discuss above and carry on, pls. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

See the above discussions. The user posted the tags after they were unable to find support for their POV; tagging in this instance could be seen as trying to circumvent the results of those discussions via bringing doubt to the validity of the article. I see that as inappropriate. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it was followed correctly. The statements by the editor show extreme POV, and when they could not get consensus on the Talk page, they added the tags. That's not really how it's supposed to work. Dave Dial (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I have no interest in joining the edit-war fray, but it could be seen as this user trying to attract a wider audience into the discussion, which is kindof a purpose of tagging as well. Should this sort of thing ever someday escalate to another Arbcom, just keep in mind that every action made is open to scrutiny. We're all in the public eye here. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. As it is a BLP, my only interest here is to make sure improvement tagging isn't abused and talkpage discussions are used. I have no opinion on the content of this article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly right about the scrutiny and ArbCom cautions. I have no interest in edit warring over this either. Although each of the talking points the editor in question has brought up has been discussed Ad nauseam on this, and other, Talk pages. Not as much as the Religion/Birth/Race FAQ pointing discussions, but almost. Dave Dial (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)