Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Multiplyperfect (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 27 April 2009 (→‎Obama's plan against swine flu). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click to manually purge the article's cache

Template:Community article probation

Featured articleBarack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 10, 2009Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

Template:Pbneutral

Redundant discussions

In case anyone is wondering if they have an original comment about one of the frequently-discussed issues for this article, here is a list of discussions at length which have taken place just in the past couple of months.

Race

Religion

Citizenship

Full name

Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion about Obama's birthplace, citizenship, race/ethnicity, etc. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to read about where Obama was born and have concerns about it, read Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Citizenship facts, rumors and claims and in particular this source which is heavily utilized in the article.

Where is the archive on Ayers? 68.5.11.175 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we select one from this list? ↜Just me, here, now … 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any of those should do. I do wonder why the Ayers topic is not included in the "Discussions". Admins getting censor happy?Miker789 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the whole WND invasion? They spammed the page and we even got mentioned on Drudge and Fox News for having "whitewashed" the article. Soxwon (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the discussion on Teleprompters go? I don't believe that was finalized.Miker789 (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why, given the extreme controversy, this article is still labeled as a featured article.

I thought that if there was even one objection to content, an article was immediately removed from 'featured' status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.5.171.254 (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be reasonable objects, relating to the Featured article criteria. Claiming that this article is biased because it doesn't include such and such controversy that no reasonable media source accepts as valid is not a reason for it to be removed as featured, as evident from the numerous featured article reviews that can be seen at the top. Grsz11 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Clearly there has been no media coverage of opposition to Obama's spending plans, for example. We like to embrace a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil philosophy here on Wikipedia. Anyone who disagrees is a right-wing radical nut-job. Even trying to provide accessible links to coverage of criticisms or controversies is a good indication of nefarious activity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, got a comfy perch on your soapy box there, CoM? To the IP editor, the "extreme controversy" is a matter of opinion. "I don't like it" isn't quite sufficient to knock an article out of featured status. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a process for reviewing the quality of featured articles and having them delisted if the content is judged to no longer meet "featured" status. As you can see from the "article milestones" at the top of the page, three of these reviews have been undertaken in the last 7 months. Apparently on each occasion the decision was made to keep the article's featured status. That strikes me as a lot of FA reviews in a short period of time, but if someone seriously wants to question the featured status of this article that is the way to go about it. I don't think this current discussion here serves much purpose. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was tried recently and I think the request to even consider revoking FA status was rejected. So it seems to fall into the "what's the point" category at this time. It doesn't say much for the FA process, but that's another can of worms. It's possible arbcom will reign in some of the worst obstructionists and POV pushers on this page, so we can improve the article and at least have it link to notable criticisms and controversies if they aren't included here. But I'm not holding my breath. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like you? Besides, we do link to some nortable controversies: we link to the Rev. Wright controversy as part of talking about his religious background. Stuff about Ayers is in the presidential campaign article, and is kept out of this article solely because it was ultimately not important to the campaign. And the Muslim rumours and conpsiracy theories are held by such a minority that they don't deserve coverage on Wikipedia, end of (and we don't cover the former, IIRC). Sceptre (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Royal We" and his opinion. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.184.141 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the particulars, but if the recent request to reconsider FA status was rejected it may have related to the fact that there were two other ones in the 6 months prior to that.
And to C of M, you really should try to be a bit more patient about including criticism (i.e., patient for much longer than one can hold one's breath). Obama has not even reached the 100 day mark of his presidency. It's almost certain that, in the long run, the main way in which this article will incorporate criticisms will relate to his performance as president (three years from now, issues like Rezko and Ayers will almost certainly be trifling matters and largely forgotten by most Americans). We're just not far enough in at this point to be able to write a good section that evaluates his presidency, including criticisms. That will change obviously. As time goes on, the section on his presidency will necessarily include a fair amount of criticism, but in a balanced manner reflecting the level of coverage in secondary sources (e.g., if Obama's approval rating stays incredibly high and the balance of media stories about him are positive, that will need to be reflected in the article - if not then that will be reflected).
As time goes on and the section on his presidency necessarily expands, I will certainly object to efforts to whitewash notable criticisms. Right now in my view it's too early to be worried about that, and I must say that C of M and many other (often anonymous) editors who rail against the iniquities of this page do themselves no favors by making conspiratorial references to "POV pushers" and a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil philosophy" (whatever that means). I encourage those editors to take a longer view of the process here and be patient as we work in more information (good, bad, and neutral) about Obama's presidency in the weeks, months, and indeed years ahead. Like all articles this is a work in progress, and the section on the presidency will look a lot different six months from now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here CoM is that you were wanting to add controversies and criticisms because they are currently happening, they seem fresh, and possibly more important than they will be in the long run. This is a suppose to be a reasonable attempt at encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is about documenting history, it's not a newspaper or a blog. Current events are much more difficult to incorporate into an encyclopedia because it's difficult to know at the time what will ultimately be truly important and worth mentioning. Let's say the Ayers or the Birth Certificate controversy really picked up steam and McCain won the presidency partly because of it. Then yes, it would be prominent here just as the whole swift boat thing is rather prominent in John Kerry's article. But ultimately Ayers and the "where was he really born" deal didn't seem to have any real significant impact. The former was mostly a stump speech and the latter died on the vine in the courts due to a rather basic constitutional issue of standing and very few people pay attention to it now, if they ever did before. The same is true about the criticisms of his spending plan. First of all the budget itself hasn't even taken effect, and it is too earlier to start declaring that x, y or z was the ramifications of the bailout. No taxes have been raised so I hardly see how complaints about taxes which haven't been raised is significant, yet.

Blog about the teabaggers all you want, but unless they turn out to be significant in the long run it doesn't warrant much more than maybe a passing mention. Frankly the tea party thing sounds like fad that flared up and will fizzle out. I could be wrong, maybe it'll turn into a massive movement, and if that happens, then sure it can be discussed. CoM, you simply are not appreciating the purpose of Wikipedia. It's not meant for every little item that pops up and seems like it could be, like it might be important. I would assume that you don't like Obama. It doesn't matter to me what your political beliefs are, but my point is, the tea parties or people who are criticising spending in general seem really important and big to you. But that doesn't mean that it is really important and big. Let some time go by, let's see how it develops, and then when things have a clearer retrospective focus, then sure we shape the article accordingly. There's a reason why there's a policy about recentism. Pick any president you want and go look at the most detailed Encyclopedia ever. Is every criticism or group which formed to protest a policy mentioned? No, of course not, every President in the history of this country received criticism fairly regularly and there were probably numerous groups which protested policies. It's just the difficulty of putting current events into an encyclopedia, so rather than rant and rave and holler about bias and POV keep in mind the purpose of this cite and have just a shred of patience. And, to be blunt, try and see that your disgust at this being an FA has more to do with your feelings concerning Obama than it does about the content of the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.171.108 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Barack Obama coverage

As the aggressively archived discussion above indicates, we've had reader after reader come here unable to find certain article content even when it's included somewhere else on the encyclopedia. So clearly it's not enough that we have Faq #5 on the talk page or that an article is listed somewhere in one of the many collapsed templates at the bottom of this article page. Whether or not we think an article is worthwhile, we apparently have a problem that readers looking for that information can't find where it's included in the encyclopedia. What should we do about this problem? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I think most readers of an online encyclopedia have some idea of what the word "search" means, so readers legitimately "looking for that information", not just trying to strong-arm their views into the article as some of these innocent readers were, would have no problem at all in finding it. Because in addition to what's been discussed in the previous section, if you type "Obama citizenship" or "Obama birth certificate" in the search box on the left of every Wikipedia page, the first article it hits is Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. And the FAQ here is not collapsed, and this subject is clearly displayed. And there is a search box above to search the talk page archives. And we answer the question each time it is asked. So in my view this "problem" has been well addressed, many times over, and in multiple ways. Tvoz/talk 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page is easily locatable. The push to include its content here is not rooted in any concern about that. --GoodDamon 23:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. Tvoz/talk 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think using the search feature is one good suggestion to make to those who are having trouble finding article content. Finding Faq #5 on talk page, the appropriate category, or the right template link is expecting a lot. Are you sure that they are all socks or some kind other kind of devious editor? How can you tell? And I don't necessarily think that type of content needs to be included here. I have noticed there are a lot of "list of articles" and I wonder since there isn't room in this article for all the many Obama related subjects to be wikilinked (most of them unrelated to conspiracy theories and controversies) if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a "list of article" of that sort? It could include all of the Obama related articles. That's what I would like to work towards. What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's separate two things. First, regarding proposals that we add links or coverage of the conspiracy theories to the body of this article, I think that's been repeatedly rejected via the consensus process and I firmly support that reasoning. That won't stop people from occasionally proposing it, and because the actual subject matter is a partisan / fringe matter, we get more than the usual share of vociferous proposals. That's one reason to have the FAQ, polite / friendly people hanging out here to assume good faith steer people in the right direction. The second thing is that some people are simply interested in reading about the subject, which is notable and does have its own article. Yes, we can use the search bar here and at google... but if that were enough why do we have wikilinks, see also sections, templates, categories, portals, etc.? If the idea is to have a better organized system for referring people to the information they seek, that can only be good. Whereas there is a policy per WP:WEIGHT of not giving too much text coverage to minor things, there is no parallel policy to make articles harder to find just because we think people's interest in them is unworthy. If people want to find an article they should find the article. ChildofMidnight has created List of Wikipedia articles related to Barack Obama which, although up for deletion or moving to portal space, seems likely to survive. If it does we could feature a link to that as a navigational aid. If not, we could instead create a single master template that comes before or in place of all the little templates. With a good design interface it might be easier to use. Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An Obama portal would be far more useful than this incessant nattering about Obama Conspiracy Theories and daily attempts to engage in rampant recentism. It would be nice to see ChildOfMidnight focus on a portal instead of his POV pushing. We can hatnote it at the top of the article, and move on. The daily attempts to turn this into the indictment of Barack Obama, or to turn it all into a soapbox against whatever actiosn he takes each day, distracts from maintaining a top notch article. ThuranX (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ThuranX, I understand your frustration. But as you've stated, if there was an appropriate linkage, readers and editors wouldn't feel the need to come here and complain (whether as part of some grand conspiracy to try and push that content into the article or out of legitimate frustration that they can't find something they're looking for (which seems more likely to me)). I would appreciate it if you and others would assume good faith on my part. If you look at the history of that article, I don't think you'll find I've made any edits to it in all my time here. This is a reflection of my interest in that particular subject, but even if I were a devout believer that Obama was born in Kenya, Indonesia or another planet (and that it mattered one bit), I don't think it should have any relevance. Whatever my interest or personal views may be, I think we can all agree that notable content should be properly included where appropriate and made accesible to those who are looking for it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, don't buy it. See, Numerous editors here have consistently presented good, reasoned advocacy for not including the material. The 'opposition' consistently says 'oh noes, it's teh librul whitewashing... of the black man...which is racist! Librul racizm!'. It's old, and boring. The biggest reasons why the right is afraid of Obama is that a successful black man who made his millions through use of a brain smarter than theirs is now in charge of things, and they're so damn sure he KNOWS they're bigoted that they are afraid his 'black man's revenge plan' will commence immediately, and will either single them out or ruin the country as the black revenge for slavery. That's it. All this handwaving about tax rates lower than their hero Ronald Reagan's suddenly being socialist is horseshit, thoroughly unsupportable by any logic or evidence. Keeping such alarmist horseshit out of this article keeps is neutral and good. Keeping the panicked thread of 'hope', that he's not really president, alive in this article is similarly stupid. As for Ayers and Wright, both are referenced out to their own articles. We cover his birth, childhood and religion here. We hit all the major marks. Consensus and ration thinking are against the horse shit some few want to see here, and that's tough shit. Go make the portal, and get off this page. Tired of reading your nonsense about 'balance' here. ThuranX (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ChildofMidnight is twisting this to get support for his pointless, policy-violating, category-reinventing, template-reinventing, self-referencing coatracky listcruft. It's all about creating as many links to the birther/Ayers/Wright/teabagger/whatever stuff as he possibly can in order to give them more weight than they deserve. Best to just ignore him. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even a disagreement here? Navigation aids like portal links and templates (and categories, etc) are reasonable. Better navigation favors all readers. Unless the proposal involves adding links and prose to the body of the article, I don't see a controversy. If that is the proposal, how about a polite "no - been there, done that, haven't changed my opinion"? 02:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> I haven't made a proposal to include any of those article in the article body. My suggestion is for a see also type link to a well organized list of article with all of Wikipedia's Obama coverage. The controversial ones are certainly NOT the only ones not linked to here. Before I recently added a link, the first 100 days article wasn't linked to anywhere here for example. And I would also point out that hunting for links in this fairly substantial article is far less convenient than a well organized list of article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals for a "see also" section have been repeatedly turned down. Bringing it up again and again in slightly different forms is not productive and is becoming disruptive. Tvoz/talk 03:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not the same old proposal for a see also. It's a proposal for a single see also to a list of article that includes all of our Obama coverage. That way there will be much less need to assume bad faith and treat people who come here with legitimate questions in such a rude and accusatory fashion when it's us who are at fault for refusing to address the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also - Listcruft that reinvents the templates and categories just below this pointless section, you mean? That's just plain daft. Nobody comes here to ask where the article on Obama's time in the Illinois State Senate is, or where the article about his first book is. They are all asking where the Ayers/birther/Wright/criticism is. This notion that people cannot find anything is just plain wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] And that "article" (the same old "see also" in a slightly different form, as I said) has several items that are clearly inappropriate for a BLP, including as links from the BLP. As has been discussed repeatedly. Sorry, but I'm not buying this as a way to bring civility to these pages - I see it as disruption. I don't believe that there is a groundswell of legitimate confusion about how to find that material - and the rudeness and accusations are not coming from this side. That's it from me - I'm not going to be drawn into this merry-go-round. Bringing it up again and again is disruptive. Tvoz/talk 03:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this the reason we have a search box? Are we assuming these readers are incapable of searching for what they are looking for? Odds are they landed on this article by searching 'Barack Obama' and if one enters 'Obama citizenship' 'Obama and Reverend Wright', 'Obama criticism' etc. you find these articles in question. I don't see a problem here. This is just one of COM's attempts to strong-arm his POV further into the article, a lame one at that. It may be just me, but I view this as disruptive. Landon1980 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Obama did not teach constitutional law" (according to Gibbs (according to William McGurn))

According to Robert Gibbs, Obama did not teach constitutional law, so there is a little bit of a conflict with the current information. link

Helen Thomas: Why is the president blocking habeas corpus from prisoners at Bagram? I thought he taught constitutional law. And these prisoners have been there . . .

Robert Gibbs: You're incorrect that he taught on constitutional law. Arzel (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of already addressed in the references: Fact Check.org While his title was technically not professor, the school considered his status as Senior Lecturer tantamount to being a professor and referred to him as such. I don't know what Gibbs was getting at, other then being uncomfortable with the actual question he was asked, but it doesn't seem to be enough to contradict any of the facts we do know and can verify. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If you will look at the article, these reliable sources[4][5] are explicit that Obama taught constitutional law. Constitutional Law III to be specific. It is worth watching, but in all likelihood Gibbs misspoke. Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had reviewed all of the other sources for the statement that he did teach Constitutional Law. The general concensus was that he kind of did, but there is some gray area. I am not here to start an edit war, but just be aware that his own press secretary has now contridicted his own Bio. One of them is wrong. Arzel (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why reading the opinion pages of Rupert Murdoch's The Wall Street Journal will only make you stupider:
  1. An April 14, 2009 White House press briefing by Robert Gibbs (Helen Thomas's question at 14:55)
  2. An April 14, 2009 White House press office transcript mistranscribed:

    MR. GIBBS: You're not incorrect that he taught on constitutional law.

    as:

    MR. GIBBS: You're incorrect that he taught on constitutional law.

  3. An opinion column by William McGurn on page A19 of the April 21, 2009 Wall Street Journal begins with the misquote of Gibbs:

    Robert Gibbs: You're incorrect that he taught on constitutional law.

    to comment:

    All Mr. Gibbs could do was interrupt and correct the doyenne of the White House press corps about Mr. Obama's class as a law professor.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources—not opinion columns in newspapers that do not do fact-checking.
76.224.20.207 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the technical definition for that is "whoopsie". —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, this is incredibly stupid. The place of birth thing is absurd enough, but with this, it is incredibly easy to prove the statement wrong. There are finals which he administered which are on the web, U of C law has discussed him being a teacher of Con Law there, there are pictures of him teaching Con Law there, there are numerous former students who have talked about having him as a teacher of Con Law there. Seriously what more do you need? In what way did only "kind of" teach Con Law. Either he did or he didn't. There is no kind of that could even enter the equation. What grey area? How could a "grey area" even exist on the subject. There is only one of two possible answers to the question. What did he show up every day and just lecture and no one had the heart to tell him to leave and then they went ahead and let him create a final exam? Now former students and administrators are just sticking to the lie? There is no quasi Con Law class. You have classes where the Constitution is apart of it, but that's not a grey era. The closest you could come is say a class on the First Amendment. Either the class was Con Law or it wasn't, there is no possibility for middle ground. None. Given the former students, the former co-workers, the administration that all said he tought Con Law, given the subject of the questions on the finals that are posted on the internet and the pictures of him teaching Con Law, I am going to go ahead and state you are a fool if you think that this topic is even worth discussing further. No there is no grey area there is no kind of, there is only a bloggers rant and one dude's awkward verbal slip versus a mountain of hard evidence. End of story.

Um, I think this was pretty much settled a few days ago with 76.224.20.207's comment. Did you read that? It wasn't a verbal slip. Just a misquote. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toy products

Shouldn't we mention some of the products being made of this man? All 'President Obama' toys are very popular in the States and some are sold elsewhere in the world. I think its something worth mentioning somewhere. Here's an example of one on Amazon.com. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. To be fair, there are bobbleheads of just about everybody these days. Do you have a link to a reliable source that discusses Obama toys? A reasonably sourced, neutral discussion of that might belong in the "public image" article or some other article related to his reception in the world. But on the face of it I doubt that any of this concerns or involves Obama directly, and it is a fairly minor matter compared to his overall biography. If he ever becomes like Elvis and people start having look-alike contests and conventions, maybe that's significant enough to be part of his main bio, but we don't seem to be there yet. Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ross raises a legit subject; the selling of the presidency, as there has been since inaug of Obama44 an unending stream of sales of presidential items , as plates, spoons, pics, etc; all with ? kick backs to O44? and that massive selling of these presidential toys, items under the mgt of the Obamacon, raises the further question of the flow of funds of the trillions being spent at the Obamacon44's behest. Are those funds being also mined for revenues for Obamacon et al. e pluribus uberall willy. 69.121.221.97 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to me that Ross was accusing Obama of anything, much less of "kick backs". SMP0328. (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that it would be more appropriate to bring this up at Public image of Barack Obama, since toys aren't really a biographical concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shel Leanne

Is Shelly Leanne a reliable source on Obama? Glanced at her most recent book, Say It Like Obama, and it's not quite as pedagogical as you'd think. Ottre 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there something particular you want to use from it? I'm not sure I understand the reason for the question. I don't know the book and had never heard of it, but I could imagine it being an appropriate source for certain things, though I'm not sure what, and perhaps it would be more appropriate for a sub-article relating to Obama than this one (something focused on his speeches and the like). Anyhow it's hard to say without knowing what you have in mind since a source might be quite reliable in one context and completely unreliable in another. Also since the book seems to be essentially about public speaking and persuasion it is presumably not at all pedagogical—which refers to teaching strategies and instructional theory—so I'm not sure what you meant by that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The couple of pages that I actually read seemed to be analysing his generational appeal. As you imply, it could well be the first of many nn books written for people who want to improve their public speaking, but it appeared to offer a scholarly take on Obama's rise to power in the context of leadership development. Ottre 19:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case it's possible it could be useful for Public image of Barack Obama, or perhaps for one of the articles dedicated to the campaign if the book is more about how he was able to use speeches and persuasion to win the election. Without knowing for sure though, I'd have to guess we could find better sources (books by historians, political journalists, etc.) that cover in more depth and with more authority some of the issues you say Leanne addresses. I could imagine discussing somewhere in an article (not this one, one of the offshoots) how Obama's speeches have been used to help teach rhetoric and public speaking (assuming that becomes a major trend), and if so this book would presumably be good fodder for that. This is all assuming Leanne is an acknowledged expert in the field. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What were you doing when Kennedy died?

US Presidents are remembered for having been the first born since the civil war, first born in the 20th century, first that didn't serve in WW2 and so on. Those of us beyond a certain age, 50 something, all know what we were doing the day JFK was assassinated. Obama was 2 years old then so he must be the first US President who is not in the group who remember what they were doing when those bullets were fired. I have been surprised over the years to run into folks who were too young to remember that event, but he is the first US President who falls into that category. --KenWalker | Talk 06:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's true, but personally I don't really see this as something worth including in the article. Referring to Obama as the first president who doesn't remember Kennedy's death is a bit arbitrary even though that was obviously an important moment in time in American history (then again so was Bobby Kennedy's death and Martin Luther King's, and presumably he has some recollection of those). I think it's more common to hear Obama described as the first post-baby boom president (though I guess he's at the tail end of that group), or the first post-WWII president who did not come of age during (or at least live through) the cultural battles of the 1960s and early 1970s. Or the first "post-civil rights" president if we want to put it that way. I'm not sure we need any of these descriptors in this article, but I think the ones I just mentioned are probably much more heavily referenced in secondary sources than the idea that he's the first president who was too young to remember JFK's death. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Kennedy couldn't remember the shooting of the Archduke. So what? Welcome to the concept of 'time'. Not notable at all.ThuranX (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what Ken perhaps had in mind was the idea that Obama represents a generational shift in the presidency. Our article on Bill Clinton notes in the intro that "he became president at the end of the Cold War, and as he was born in the period after World War II, is known as the first Baby Boomer president." Obama is arguably the first post-baby boomer president (or something like that), and one way to say this would be to point to the fact that he did not remember a significant event like JFK's death. I don't think it's at all appropriate to put that in the article as I said (perhaps eventually something about his generational significance could be noted), but I also don't think anyone here needed to be reminded about the concept of time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bigtimepeace's comments and have had ample opportunity to become familiar with the concept of time, although reminders are useful. The Kennedy reference is only to point out that he is of a different generation than his predecessor. I agree that not remembering the assassination of Ferdinand is not relevant this article (for the record, I don't remember that event either) but the change of generation is relevant amongst the various other changes he represents. --KenWalker | Talk 23:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is something we can just bear in mind, and if at some point it seems obvious that Obama is being referred to as the first president of the _____ generation (hey - they should make a song about that!) or of the post-______ era (i.e. in some generational sense) then that would warrant inclusion. I'm just not sure that there's anything approaching agreement on that right now. Perhaps there never will be, and if different terms are used to describe a generational shift in Obama's presidency maybe those could be briefly discussed at Presidency of Barack Obama. It's probably best to wait awhile (maybe even a few years) and see how this whole presidency thing unfolds, but it's definitely worth thinking about. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Hundred Days

Obama hits his 100th day in office next Wednesday. As I've suggested previously on this talk page, I think the conclusion of the first hundred days will provide a good opportunity to expand/revise our current section on the presidency. Right now we don't talk about anything that's happened in his presidency since late February, and while of course we are not a newspaper, I think some stuff has gone down in the last couple of months that is worth discussing in this the main bio article (I mentioned a couple of suggestions in this now archived thread). We obviously have to make decisions about when and how to expand the presidency section over time - it will necessarily take up more of this article as we get deeper into Obama's term - and I think we're getting to a point where some (fairly small) expansion is necessary.

I don't think we need to necessarily frame whatever is added in terms of the First Hundred Days - there is some truth to the idea that it's an arbitrary point at which to evaluate the administration (though given the constant comparisons between Obama's situation and FDR's, it's rather more historically resonant than basically any administration since WWII). The only reason I think it's good for us to rethink the presidency section right now is that we're about to see (indeed are already seeing) a slew of articles in reliable secondary sources that will evaluate the presidency up to this point. Arbitrary or not, this is seen by secondary sources as a milestone. They'll consider the most important legislation, foreign trips, popularity, criticism and support for Obama's policies, etc. In addition to probably importing/summarizing some material from Presidency of Barack Obama and First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency (though I'm not sure the latter is, right now at least, all that useful in that regard), I think we can get a good sense of what's receiving the most coverage in secondary sources by culling through a number of these "let's-sum-up-the-first-hundred-days" type pieces. It might make more sense to revise Presidency of Barack Obama first, though I still think it's worth it to discuss the overall approach here.

Any thoughts? Does this strike others as a good time to grow the presidency section a little bit? Also note that I don't at all think we need to/should have this done by the hundred day mark, indeed we would probably want to wait until that passed before making significant revisions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one other thing, which perhaps has been mentioned previously, but the "political positions" section really needs to be reworked. Essentially all of it precedes his election and time in office. I think we'd want to keep a good amount of that, but we'll also want to start to show how his positions evolved (or stayed basically the same) after he took office. That's probably a rather tall order and it probably makes sense to work on that somewhat separate from the section on his presidency (though I suppose it's actual possible it could be easier to work on them in tandem), but I just wanted to throw this out there as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in complete agreement. Sufficient time has passed, with some of the new legislation and executive decisions having a chance to "bite", to begin thinking in terms of "historical perspective". I'm sure there will be a wealth of material referencing the first 100 from the mainstream media in the coming few days. Regarding your second point, there is a similar discussion going on at Political positions of Barack Obama; an enormous article in dire need of an overhaul. Since the "political positions" section of this article is meant (to a large extent) to summarize the sub-article, work on improving this section should happen in tandem with that. WP:OBAMA is certainly a gigantinormous project! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support a small expansion of the Presidency section, importantly adding the car company bailout and the concern over the expansion of Taliban influence in Pakistan. (The Taliban expansion part undoubtedly will need revision as developments develop.) Maybe including his foreign trip, though its effects look minor at the moment and the most notable element was his popularity, which if commented upon is likely to start edit wars. I strongly support not having a "first 100 days" heading. Eventually the Presidency section should go back to having subsections, probably Foreign and Domestic initially, but eventually Economic, Domestic, Foreign Policy, and War Policy. (I was part of the elimination of this breakdown earlier, since the section was too small (and probably still will be for another 6 months).) We need to resist a large expansion at this time-- the Presidency section ideally would grow gradually as his presidency takes form. I'd like to lobby now for avoiding a strict chronological approach in the section. The edit warring is less if we just list events and actions in chronological order, but it's more informative if organized topically. Regarding "political positions", it might be better to wait until the fur settles down over the Presidency section expansion. CouldOughta (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"War policy" seems like it should be part of "foreign policy" if we are going to talk about recreating sections. Also, I was not aware that America had declared war on any nation. Did I miss something important? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to check your tone, Scjessey. He didn't say anything about the United States declaring war on anyone; more likely, he was talking about the reshuffling of troops from one theater of operations to another ie Iraq to Afghanistan. If you can't participate without being snarky, I suggest you you're in the wrong place. Ikilled007 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was making a valid point that you cannot have a "war policy" when you aren't actually at war. No snarkiness was intended, and may I respectfully suggest that it is you who needs to "check your tone" and discuss the article, not the editors. This puts your comment in the proper perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The US is at war. That's what its government says. It's "the war against terror" (it sounds nutty to me, but I'm not the government). Or rather less nuttily, a war against Al-Qaida. And the duck test: The US kills other people and destroys stuff, and those nationals kill people and destroy stuff: yes, it looks like war, smells like war, generates body-bags like war. Even if the recently departed Potus didn't actually ask for any sacrifices from those not at war, so in some ways it doesn't seem like war at all. Certainly it brings on snooping and government violations of the Constitution like war. The US does this without declaring war, because declaring war irritatingly starts to democratize the decision or even hinder it. Whether or not the previous administration had any policy for its war, I'd hope that the new one does. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that war is mostly foreign policy; the four headings suggested just seemed like appropriate divisions. If we use "Military Policy" instead, the topic also would include the Defense Secretary's proposed changes to military spending, which might be a nice way to organize the summary.CouldOughta (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Scjessey and Ikilled007 need to comment on content, not other editors. Too many discussion get sidetracked when folks start attacking each other and that really needs to stop completely, particularly from veteran editors of this page. I don't think we need to have a "war policy vs. foreign policy" debate about sub sections at this time, since I don't think anyone is proposing that we split the presidency section into sub-sections just yet. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Record !! During this first 100 days the Obama 44 Admin has spent (at least had authorized, some yet to be spent) more money/funds than all governments on earth since the earth began, clearly a reocrd; but some feel this massive, resulting new USA debt (5 trillion from Obama44 and 2-3 trillion from Bush43) has already broken the back of the USA ultimately bankrupting it and so destroying the most successfull country in global history. added in this edit by some IP
There are so many facts to write up that Wikipedia in general and certainly this article in particular can safely skip writing up what some unspecified people "feel". -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding these two words to this sentence?

The article contains this sentence, except for the two bolded words. I propose that these two words be added:

The bill included increased federal borrowing and spending, aid to states, and tax reductions.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an improvement to me; the borrowing is significant. Go for it, see if anyone fights. CouldOughta (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm waiting for a consensus before I add it. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either way, but did the bill itself actual include "increased federal borrowing?" That is, was the limit on what the government can borrow explicitly raised as part of the bill, or did the bill say "this will be paid for by borrowing x dollars, which is an increase?" If not I don't think we can word it like this. Certainly the government will have to borrow more in order to pay for this and other expenses, but that's not exactly what the above sentence says. If increased borrowing was part of the stimulus bill we would need a source that says that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence says they cut taxes. If they cut taxes and increased spending, then where did the increased spending come from? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This response sounds like original research to me. Tvoz/talk 02:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grundle if you find a couple reliable sources about the increased borrowing, I think we should be able to work out an NPOV way to include it. As you've pointed out, the stimulus package requires a lot of borrowing. Clearly, the deficit is also related to the economic slowdown, so maybe Tvoz can suggest wording that is NPOV and gives appropriate context? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the sentence as it is presently worded, so no thanks. Tvoz/talk 03:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't clarify anything, and the problem isn't sourcing. It's a truism that deficit = spending - revenues. There are some complexities like budget estimates, off-budget spending, accounting games, printing money, etc., and all of those are political truisms as well. It does not add to anyone's understanding of things to include an aside, at every turn, that increased spending without increasing revenues requires borrowing. That is a partisan rhetorical flourish - if Obama proposes to spend money it means more borrowing, which means blame Obama for something. Wikidemon (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really so simple? The latest issue of Reason magazine says outright by any measure of funding, the general public's reliance upon government will increase with the next budget. Ottre 11:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I also want to chime in that the way the sentence is currently written is NPOV and fine. The addition of the two words is in the assumption that there will be borrowing. (Because there is no RS source that says that borrowing has taken place specifically to aid this bill.) This same assumption is also behind the tax day tea parties, that while right now the taxes are being lowered for 95% of the population, the assumption is that sooner or later they will have to be raised again to cover all this spending. The issue here is that there is a big debate between economists whether this is going to happen. Not surprisingly the two sides of this economics debate is also the same two political sides too. Simply put, this is a debate over assumptions and future predictions. If way down the road, Obama does raise taxes, has to barrow money to cover this bill, or someone else, then we can include that. However, to include any derivation of this assumption boils down to synthesis and original research. Brothejr (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Ottre, if ever a statement smacked of panic generation for sake of sales and drama, Reason's statement is it. That's simply a libertarian fear tactic. ThuranX (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source. Fox News says: "The federal deficit is projected to hit a record high of more than $1.8 trillion this year, due in large part to the government providing aid to Wall Street firms and other struggling companies, as well as Obama's $787 stimulus package." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote says nothing about borrowing. ThuranX (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 had a CBO reference: [1] The fact that the stimulus package increases debt is neither disputed nor surprising; it's inherent in the idea of the stimulus and was freely if hotly discussed by all parties. There is the objection by Bigtimepeace that the language of the bill may not have addressed the actual borrowing; we may want to use "increased Federal deficit spending, aid to states..." since the increased short-term deficit is what makes the stimulus, at least in theory, work. This addition slightly improves a section that is a little short right now. CouldOughta (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the reference. The cite: [1] and then the reference : CouldOughta (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery.gov, the website created for this Act.
  1. ^ a b letter by Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the CBO, February 11, 2009

I'm not against the principle, but I don't believe it's an accurate way of stating it, because the "aid to states" and "tax reductions" also directly cause an increase of the deficit. A better, more neutral and accurate, way of stating the same thing would be "The bill included increased federal spending, aid to states, and tax reductions, paid for by an increased federal deficit" or some-such. I'm not sure Fox News would be a strong source for citation, however, given their well-publicised bias, but the CBO citation would be a decent source. -137.222.114.243 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Pakistan / anti-terrorism info

An editor has reverted this proposal[6] citing length, which gets to WP:WEIGHT. That means that this one matter takes up too much of the entire article in relation to its relative importance to Obama's life. I agree with that, but also see problems relating to encyclopedic tone and WP:NPOV (neutrality), relevance, and focus. To avoid redundant discussions, I'm opening a topic at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, where similar material was just added (and where I will remove it for purposes of discussion, if it has not already). This is more relevant to the presidency article than the bio so it makes more sense to hash it out there. This article is even broader than that one, so we have a higher threshold of importance before something is worth adding. Whatever we say here, if anything, would likely be considerably shorter and focus on what it says about Obama's overall life and career rather than the policy / world events aspect of it. Wikidemon (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree that it makes more sense to discuss this material over at the "Presidency" article, and that we should forgo any inclusion of "anti-terrorism" operations in this article for now. However if we expand the presidency section at some point in the relatively near future, it would not be unreasonable to at least consider including a quick mention of the operations in Pakistan in a paragraph on foreign policy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally in the wrong section, but the information is relvant as it immediate follows the President's policy in Afghanistan. It is well supported and most expert's would agree the Pakistan is the most signicant national security threat. This should of been shortend and moved, but not of been removed. Obamiac (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obamiac, and anyone else interested, please see the discussion here as that's probably a better place to hash this out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think we may have a sockpuppet problem here, I'm looking into it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Obamiac and HoyaProff (the latter being an account which edit warred on behalf of Obamiac's version) seem to be controlled by the same user, along with four other accounts. I've indef blocked the lot of them for abusive sockpuppetry. See here for relevant information. These accounts do not seem to have had a major effect on the Obama articles, however if anyone comes across any accounts that seem to be part of this sock ring please let me know.
Note also that this obviously does not mean that it's not legitimate to discuss inclusion of anti-Al Qaeda operations in Pakistan in this article, or (much more likely) in the article on Obama's presidency. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive2‎

Why are we getting no feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama/archive2‎ except a stale oppose for an image that was removed last week?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's plan against swine flu

Why there is zero word about it in the article? From http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/27/swine.flu/index.html:

Currently 103 deaths only in Mexico and 1614 reported cases. "The government declared a public health emergency." " In the United States, the largest number of cases was in New York City, New York, where the CDC confirmed cases in eight students at preparatory school."

I would like to read more about Obama's plan against flu, if there is any. And not after killing 20 millions peoples. Multiplyperfect (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Oh no, wait, it is a newspaper, but what you're looking for isn't here but at 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States. -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is the president, responsible for the people's health. Multiplyperfect (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Him, personally? Well well. I thought that was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc. Either way, if you want the article to say something, then rather than complaining that it doesn't say it, try drafting it right here. If what you write is cogent, concise, and backed with sources, perhaps you'll persuade somebody to put it into the article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Bring something to the table about this non-issue, and then let us review it.
A third world country has a disease, Obama lets the correct group of scientists evaluate the situation and formulate a response, and some right winger runs to wikipedia to bitch about Obama's cowardice in delegating the matter, not flying down there and healing the sick with a miraculous touch. ThuranX (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too early. If they start dropping in the streets in Dubuque, then Obama's response needs to be in the article. At this time, the outbreak has had little direct impact in the U.S.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A third world country has a disease" Hm, this would imply that US is also a third world country, because currently there are hundreds of such cases, some of them are already proven. And note that this "third world country" as I remember has got a border with US. Multiplyperfect (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best to let coverage of breaking events percolate up, starting with the article about the thing (the 2009 swine flu article). As we get a consistent picture of what Obama and the administration are doing about it, something that probably won't be apparent for a few weeks, we can make the decision of how, what, and how much of this to cover in the article about Obama's presidency. Finally, once we have enough perspective to know whether this figures into Obama's life story we may or may not add a note about it to this main bio article. It would have to be a huge event that directly involves the president for it to be worth noting here, and we just won't know that... likely not until we know whether this is really a big pandemic, avoided or not, and what the president's role was in dealing with it. Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"something that probably won't be apparent for a few weeks," Oh man! What you know about exponential growth? If in a day the number of deaths are doubling (what is currently true) then we have got 2 million deaths in two weeks. Would you wait this point?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=286481647"