Talk:First 100 days of the Barack Obama presidency

Politics Unassessed

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Barack Obama Unassessed (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 21, 2009	Articles for deletion	Redirected
February 11, 2009	Deletion review	Overturned

Really?

I'm archiving this section as the topic is now the subject of a AFD discussion. ↜Just me, here, now … 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why is there not an article about Bush's first 100 days? I'm not convinced this is going to be an historically notable subject. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to explain why exactly 100 days are the topic of as much interest as they are (i.e., it's become a standard since The First Hundred Days of FDR's New Deal.--ragesoss (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep: Keep per Other stuff exists. The difference between Bush's first hundred days was that Wikipedia likewise was only in its first months of breathing oxygen (in fact Bush's first inauguration occured when Wikipedia's umbilical cord was still attached to Nupedia); whereas now the lenght of Wikipedia's beard is -- um, to the tune of a dozen million articles! ↜Just me, here, now … 02:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Note

The text here has been userfied to User:TonyTheTiger/Obama's first 100 days Xavexgoem (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC) The text remains under the redirect, should anything need to be merged[reply]

Title

Barack Obama's first 100 days sounds like the first third of his first year of life. Shouldn't it be Barack Obama's first 100 days of Presidency(is presidency capitalized??)? To assume that Barack Obama's first 100 days refers to his presidency seems to be a case of recentism. For all we know his presidency may be one of his minor accomplishments before his life is finished. Chillum 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a really good rename, actually, to Barack Obama's first 100 days of Presidency or First 100 days of Barack Obama's Presidency, something like that. And yeah, by convention, the Presidency is capitalized in reference to the American president. rootology (C)(T) 01:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the latter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer the latter. Chillum 03:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move it over, we can always do it again if something better comes up. rootology (C)(T) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to be bold. Chillum 03:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't presidency be in lower case? English isn't my first language but I don't think it's a proper noun; then again Presidency of George W. Bush puts it in caps in the introductory sentence... Natural Cut (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this[1] and everything else I read you capitalize it when you are referring to a specific president. So you would say "It would be neat to be president", you would also say "It would not be so neat to be President Bush". Chillum 05:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the question is, would you say "George W. Bush didn't enjoy his Presidency" or "George W. Bush didn't enjoy his presidency". ;-) The former simply looks wrong to me, and American news say "Obama's presidency" so I'm going to stick by my gut and say move it to lower case. Natural Cut (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They did not capitalize "presidency" because that word was not referring to a specific president, it was referring to the position of president. In the same article they say "...that President Barack Obama can handle the crisis with a competent and steady team". When referring to a specific president then it is capitalized. See also [2],[3],[4]. Chillum 06:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't disagreeing with you that President would be capitalized... You're 100% correct. It's Presidency [sic] that I'm saying is incorrect. Even when it's President Obama's presidency. Natural Cut (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I spent all that time researching the rules and I forgot what we were comparing to. Yes I think you are right that since "presidency" is not referring to the person who is president that is should not be capitalized. Sorry, it has been a long week and I got a bit befuddled. Chillum 15:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These also agree with your point[5][6]. Chillum 15:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and made the move since the grammar rules are clear on this(now that I am thinking straight). Chillum 16:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama and the Press

It seems to be common knowledge that the media does not like how Obama has handled them. The two first missteps were his opening week venture to the media room for gladhanding when they wanted substantive answers and is blockage of media for the retaking of the oath. I see a {{fact}} was added about this issue. This does not mean he is not handling the media effectively. He has had not Kennedyesque blunders yet to my knowledge. They just don't like his effectiveness.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for wanting citations

"Although the first hundred days was not a concept relevant in the Lincoln Administration, Obama followed Lincoln by naming the former party front-running Senator from New York as his United States Secretary of State.^{[citation needed]} Lincoln had chosen William H. Seward and Obama chose Hillary Clinton." I'm kind of hoping Obama's presidency won't be exactly like Lincoln's, Civil Wars aren't all they're cracked up to be, but this particular comparison seemed interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are plenty of sources for this subject I see no reason not to diligently remove uncited material. Good job. Chillum 02:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leno

Why isn't Obama's appearance on Leno included? This is notable being that he was the first sitting President to appear on a late night talk show. Sure it has nothing to do with his policies or 100 days agenda, but he made the trip in order to communicate to a certain audience/demographic about the economy. He also made the "Special Olympics or something" comment blunder. I believe that it is notable and must be included.