Talk:Barack Obama

Ancestry...

English? - The article states that he is mostly of English-descent on his mother's side, yet of the three references cited, one says nothing about his ancestry and the other two are principally about his Irish heritage. The references simply do not match the text. Shouldn't this be changed? (I know this page is semi-protected, so I hesitate to make any changes without prior discussion.) Philliefan09 (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Americans of Swiss-German descent and Category:People of Huguenot descent fits Obama, no matter how far back. I get how some would find this unimportant, but important is the sole criteria. I mean he is the descendant of Swiss-Germans and Huguenots.

He has a couple different German lines, the Aments, the Stroups, the Wolfleys, etc... If people perfer, use Category:People of Scottish descent rather then Category:Scottish Americans. Also the first line of the Category:Scottish American is just people from Scotland and their descendants, which he is... Cladeal832 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Under the provision that the categories "People of ________ descent" are used, I might be able to be persuaded. But without strong support by others, I really feel this is over-categorizing the article with minutia. DKqwerty (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we take a pass on such things unless the subject self-identifies as such? Tarc (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It's trivial at best, original speculation at worst. Some of this stuff is justification because at some point 500 years ago, the region his family was form was conquered by X, or Y was the majority populace. Not good enough. ThuranX (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To the "self-identification" stuff, here is the official quote nearly anytime a genealogy article comes out about Barack Obama: "I've got pieces of everybody in me,". Some are creating a false conclusion. This wasn't speculation or best guest. It's researched documented that these are his anccestors and they were from Y or X prior to Kansas. And when you're the leader of the free world, your ancestry gets a closer look. Go to European communities like Moneygall or Bischwiller or Besigheim or Anglesey and the people there won't tell tell you it's trivial.123456 Cladeal832 (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't actually address the point being made; ethnic categorization isn't done here unless the subject identifies him/herself with it. Most Americans are mutts and could pigeonhole themselves into any number of micro-categories. It isn't important. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless there's additional reason, outside of self-identification, to include it, because of notable actions by the subject, then it should stay out. that is, unless we see Obama enacting policy based on those minute heritages, it's not worth including. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I could make a decent argument that I was a Viking-American. But my ancestors were too busy raping and pillaging to keep close track of bloodlines. It doesn't affect me at all; I've done no raping and only modest pillaging in my life. PhGustaf (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Barack Obama

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Barack Obama's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "energy":

• From Virginia: "Virginia State Energy Profiles". Energy Information Administration. United States Department of Energy. June 26, 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
• From Presidency of Barack Obama: "From Peril to Progress". Whitehouse.gov. White House. 2009-01-26. Retrieved 2009-01-26.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As a semi-sentient editor, I tried to figure out what this bot is asking, but was not successful - I didn't find an orphaned ref named "energy". Perhaps a more sentient editor can have a go at it. Tvoz/talk 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you and I have yet had a "sentientcy contest" in order to see which one of us is more sentient, Tvoz (surely we'll get to that someday); but like you I have no idea what this bot is talking about. It is a very friendly bot though, and I like that it says at the outset that it can't really determine what to do, and at the end admits that it might not really know what it's talking about. This particular bot-message might not apply to this article, but in terms of the language it uses the bot is truly a model of civility and humility and—I think—an example to us all. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - there are a few editors I can think of who ought to take this bot out for a drink and get some tips... Tvoz/talk 06:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Article about religious views of Obama?

Shouldn't we create an article about the religious views of Obama? After all, the great discussion questioning if Obama is the Messiah, the Second Coming of Jesus, the Antichrist or a normal mortal. Just Google it, I got mroe than four millions results on the first two. Von Mario (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a correlation between the man's popularity/cult status and his religious beliefs. I doubt few, if any, of the vaunted "four million" hits there have any reliable, notable, or serious discussions on Obama's literal transcendence into the demisphere. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The public image of Barack Obama article could do with a section about the many relious-style references he has received, particularly from those who are very enthusiastic about him.--MartinUK (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad habits

Obama has a bad habit of telling people to sit down or have a seat, when they're giving him a standing ovation. Could this be added to the article (with sources)? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to guess why you are referring to this as a "bad habit", and unless reliable sources do, and it's deemed of sufficient weight to go into his biography (both of which I highly doubt), no, it would not be added to the article. Tvoz/talk 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh... what? This is a joke, right? Ikilled007 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope so, but I'm sad to say, around this page one never knows. So I answered it. Tvoz/talk 19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For the Wiki-record, it wasn't a joke. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is pertinent to the article at this point. You call it a bad habit, others might call it humility, a desire to move on with his speech, a desire to keep to a schedule, etc... I don't think it's a joke by any means. If you have sources, fact, reasoning here then maybe we look at it. That doesn't mean it gets included. I have a hard time believing it ever will be. (Rustydangerfield (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Criticism of Obama

This article seems extraordinarily uncritical for a significant page on Wikipedia. At present it almost reads like a press release from his office. Even Jesus Christ doesn't get such good coverage in popular media. Globally, there is much distrust about Obama -- I believe there is a duty for Wikipedians to cover thoroughly such controversy in an encyclopaedic article. The YouTube film, The Obama Deception, is just one of many examples, not that I agree with all it offers. Such criticisms should be explored in Wikipedia, in the name of balance and NPOV. Alpheus (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ section above on this page, questions 6-9 entitled "Controversies, praise and criticism" - click on "show" for the answers. Tvoz/talk 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? You're using The Obama Deception as an example? The Obama Deception is just another piece of "ZOMG! SOCIALIST!"/"ZOMG! NEW WORLD ORDER!" fluff. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good source to me, although I do agree with Alpheus in that I do not agree with all it offers...haha Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We run into a challenge here as we do with all sources in reference to reliable sources. Adding ZOMG does not discredit the source because it appears extreme or fringe. Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that this is allowable. The test seems to be two-fold. 1) Does it obscure the mainstream view? I think not, meaning it's allowable here. 2) Test two applies to whether or not it gives creedence to or overstates a fringe theory's level of acceptance, and I think it's fair to say that including this would do just that, which argues against including The Obama Deception specifically.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

More specifically it is a fringe conspiracy theory video of little note. It is already covered (although without sources) in the article about its producer, Alex Jones (radio host). It is neither significant nor relevant enough to be worth including in this article either for the fact that the video was made, or that it expresses a particular extreme opinion. Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is in clear violation of wp:NPOV (neutral point of view). We are expected to include a variety of perspectives. There are many notable criticisms of Obama and none of them are included appropriately. The lesser more fringey ones may not belong here in this article, but should be included appropriately elsewhere on Wikipedia with links (such as a see also to a list of article or via wikilinks) so readers can access them. The bias and censorship that's been engaged in on this subject is disgusting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As we have found in the dozens of other times you have brought this matter to this and other articles, you notion of "notable criticisms" does not rise to the standard that the Wikipedia requires. Laundry lists of criticisms will not be appearing in the main article, and for the material that is notable...for someone who has amassed all of 5 months in office...are in Public image of Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. These are the last 8 presidents, none of them have criticism sections, and the list included presidents like George W. Bush, Nixon, LBJ, Clinton, and Carter. If we're going to add a criticism section, it should probably be on a president that has finished their presidency, and have had historians and other academics go over and examine their presidencies.

Both the the John McCain and Sarah Palin have pages similar to Obama. So COM, are you really trying to keep NPOV, all I see is that you're trying to add your own POV. Every single president has criticism, yet an overwhelming majority of them don't have criticism, even the very controversial part of the artice. Yet, this is the only president I see you even try to bring this up on. One, the president should probably finish his term. Otherwise, it's just like saying that a five month old baby is evil, though we have yet to see how everything works out in the end. W.Bush shouldn't have a criticism section because he's just finished his presidency and people still have yet to analyze it besides "OMG, conservatives suck, hey, Iraq was wrong, I never voted for him". Like for Obama, it's pretty much "OMG, liberals suck, I don't like taxes, he's a muslim". So, before you start going, hey, this is in violation of NPOV, it's disgusting. You should probably consider that you're pushing an extreme amount of POV, to a point that it's also disgusting. Deavenger (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the latest president to have a criticism section or article, to my knowledge, is FDR. We used to have one for Bush, and a massive criticism section, but we've undergone a concerted effort to better integrate it into other articles. The constant pushing for a criticism article/section is not NPOV, because no comparable person has the sections either (either candidates or predecessors). Sceptre ^(talk) 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I want to add, none of the presidents should have criticism sections. One, it's about the presidency, not the actual person. 2, it falls under presidency and public image of the president of former president. Deavenger (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has addressed the substance of the neutral point of view violation. There are no criticisms included in this article. That's inappropriate. And if you read the McCain or other articles they are chock full. Obama has received substantial criticisms for his personal associations, for his economic policies, for his foreign policies and positions on Iraq and interrogations, for his style of governance and yet none of it is mentioned anywhere in this article. This is a puff piece written by partisans. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the n-teenth time: aside from his personal associations, everything you just mentioned regards his presidency, not his biography. And there is no source that has confirmed any actual impropriety regarding his ancillary associations with, say, Bill Ayers; to include it in his biography gives undo weight to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. DKqwerty (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what version of the McCain article you're reading, but the McCain article is quite positive of him. So is the cultural image article, which has a section about his temprament and controversial remarks because he's a self-admitted snark (although the former section could do with a bit of rewriting). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, there is simply no "neutral point of view violation" here. You have made this accusation, numerous times, and it has been soundly rejected by the community. Your "substantial criticisms" are invariably sourced to fringe nuttery, as this person's "Obama Deception" is, or giving undue weight to extreme minority POVs, or both. This is veering into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus of community is actually one of the dangers of democracy and a true NPOV, but that's a discussion for another day. @ChidofMidnight Criticisms are really no more appropriate than praises in that they are on the edge and do not create an NPOV either. @DKqwerty impropriety and criticism are not the same thing, and impropriety is not what is being discussed here, criticism and personal associations are. Impropriety is not the test for whether this should be included or not. Wikipedia guidelines are also clear that just because something is seen as fringe does not negate it being included. The test is whether it gives undue weight in a manner that gives the impression that the belief or view is more popular than it really is.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

A reminder: Wikipedia is not a democracy. And the talk archives are full of extensive discussions about the points CoM raises, as he knows. Consensus has always come back to the same point, and one should not assume that a lack of willingness to discuss it yet again on the parts of some editors indicates that anyone has changed his or her mind. Tvoz/talk 17:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a democracy. I alluded to the idea that "consensus of community" is the same thing as democracy and that it's a danger to finding a true NPOV here when editors (or anyone for that matter) believes that something gets included or disregarded simply on the basis of consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustydangerfield (talk • contribs) 02:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A reminder: Consensus can change.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

True consensus can change, however it is not going to change overnight nor at the whim of some editors. To get these edits into the article without edit warring, you need to get a consensus of editors. As it stands now, there is no consensus for the edits. Brothejr (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC

Nor will it ever have a chance to change if every single discussion is quickly closed and every single question some one poses is refered back o the archives.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, it can be considered a disruption if the same editors continue to bring up the same topic over and over again in the hopes that it might change consensus. Brothejr (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thus the danger of believing that consensus = democracy. What if 12 months down the road the issue gets brought up again, and the consensus is different? Wikipedia is much more of a democracy than it admits to be. Yes, the "guidelines" say it isn't, but nothing could be further from the truth. Consensus does, and always will be fluid and changing, and I've noticed here and in other articles that when a few don't want the consensus to change the claim some lame argument about "long standing" or "don't delete, improve." This isn't a matter of it's been brought up and settled. If this is to be a true thing edited by the people, new ideas and new opinions still get a voice whether today or in 6 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustydangerfield (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right. Tvoz/talk 18:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of furthering this debate: to discuss his associations is to imply that they are somehow improper, otherwise there's no reason to address them without including all of Obama's associations, positive or negative. If we were to discuss any and all associations, we'd end up with an unwieldy list of people that would likely get shunted to a separate article anyway. Discussing the controversy surrounding these associations implies that they are of consequence – which they are not as nothing has come of them – and gives credence to unsubstantiated claims of impropriety due to these associations, a claim for which there are no reliable sources. Furthermore, these controversies have nothing to do with his biography and are at most an anecdote of the 2008 campaign. DKqwerty (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find this to be true at all "there's no reason to address them without including all of Obama's associations" because associations do imply impropriety. I don't think the associations you have mentioned mean impropriety here though. The biography/campaign separation argument isn't very sound either as there are plenty of campaign instances in his article + a biography is shaped by a president's experiences, especially his campaign.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Numerous editors keep bringing up the NPOV issue, so to say that it's resolved and that consensus has been achieved is simply false. The policy and guidelines are clear. Whether Obama's associations, whether the criticisms of his positions on the role of government, and whether his views on economic policy are right or wrong is irrelevant. These issues have received very substantial coverage. So just as the Keating 5 is covered in McCain's article, the issues raised by those opposing Obama need to be included in his article. Lots of editors have made it clear that they don't personally agree with these perspectives, and that's wonderful, but per NPOV we include notable perspectives whether we agree with them and they're "right" or "wrong". No one can seriously argue that there hasn't been substantial coverage of his associations, that he hasn't been criticized for his economic policies and positions, and that his governance philosophy in favor of government intervention isn't controversial. So let's get together and work out how to include this content appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What you call "numerous" others would call a collections of WP:SPAs and those on the verge of 6-month topic bans. i.e. nothing much to speak of. Nothing Obama has done so far has risen to the level of a fraud scandal on par with the Keating 5. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Keating 5 has nothing to do with this article (Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

McCain was cleared of all charges. Please don't violate our BLP guidelines by misrepresenting facts and attempting to smear people with falsehoods. Obama's close relationship with Tony Rezko over many years is very similar, except that it was never officially investigated and no determination has ever been made on whether there was any wrongdoing. We know Rezko was involved in Obama's purchase of his house from the initial tour to the simultaneous purchase. We know Obama supported money going to Rezko's fraudulent housing schemes that wasted an enormous amount of money on projects that were never completed. So please don't misrepresent the facts and impose your personal opinion on others. The scandals involving Rezko, Wright and Ayers have been widely reported on in relation to Obama. Your personal bias is irrelevant and the need to comply with our core policy of NPOV is paramount. Readers should have an opportunity to decide for themselves which perspectives they agree with, and we shouldn't be censoring content and biasing our coverage inappropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Aaand now we see that you're just a simple POV pusher. You're apparently trying to prevent people from "misrepresenting the facts" and "imposing your personal opinion on others", but at the same time you're trying to assume that Obama being at the same community meeting with a former terrorist makes him a communist sympathiser. That makes as much sense as implying the Democratic Party is a white supremacist party because its most senior Senator used to be a recruiter for the Klan. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We should all be NPOV pushers. That's the goal.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

• <outdent> Once again Sceptre you engage in personal attacks and smears. I haven't suggested any of those things. I've suggested that a notable perspective is that Obama's associations with Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers have been controversial and notable. There's also notable criticism about his views on the role of government and his economic policies. We owe it to our readers to note these and to provide links to the articles covering these issues in more detail so people who choose to do so can can read about them. NPOV is a core policy and we can't violate based on our personal beliefs. It's irrelevant whether you or I think he did anything wrong. There are notable criticisms and controversies and they need to be included whether we agree with them or not, just as we include them for other politicians. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  It's not a personal attack. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy that you don't want smears in the McCain article but you're perfectly fine with those smears in the Obama article. We ask you: what is so important about Rezko, Wright, or Ayers that it changed Obama's direction completely, like Keating did to McCain? And of course, there is criticism about his role in government and economic policies. The same is true about Bush, who widely expanded the amount of power the executive wields and seeing the worst recession since World War II happen on his watch. But there is no criticism section for him. Instead, we talk about his economic policies, and talk about who supports and who opposes him. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? There is extensive discussion of the Keating issue in McCain's article and there's a link to the Keating article covering the issues more broadly. There is extensive criticism in the Byush article, including in the opening paragraphs. There is no criticism in this article because it's being censored against our NPOV policies. There is very substantial coverage in reliable sources of the issues raised repeatedly by multiple editors: associations, economic policies, philosophy on government's role. You keep making stuff up and making untrue accusations, but you refuse to deal with the core point that this article reflects only one POV. This article violates our neutral point of view policy because sources and content that cover issues that aren't favorable are being excluded. That's improper. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  The Keating scandal ended up causing John McCain to focus on making sure public money is spent correctly by the government. And that's one of his more notable activities. In comparison, what did Ayers/Wright/Rezko do to make Obama completely change his direction on an issue? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  Well, the Wright controversy actually did influence a major spiritual decision on Obama's part. He withdrew from his church. Of course, that's already mentioned in this article, as is proper. --GoodDamon 01:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wright issue was a very big deal during the campaign. To pretend like it wasn't is simply disingenuous. Ayers and others were a little more of political cheap shots to seek for character assassination.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

I completely agree. But more importantly, reliable news sources also agree, especially on the Ayers crap. --GoodDamon 13:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll concede Wright, and I did ask that question knowing that there may be a perfectly good reason for mentioning him in the article: it did change his religion (from Trinity to non-denominational/unspecified), which is an important part of a person's life. However, Ayers was pretty much indeed a classic case of mudslinging. It may be acceptable to say "Obama launched his political career at a meeting with Chicago community organisers such as Bill Ayers, State Senator Alice Palmer, etc", but adding "former Weather Underground member/terrorist" wouldn't, as it would infer guilt by association, akin to calling the Democrats a white supremacist party because Byrd used to recruit for the Klan; it was in the past, and they've (both) verifiably atoned and reformed. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Point of order, Obama did not launch his political career there. That's been debunked - it's demonstrably untrue. Actually, it was never bunked in the first place. That was part of the smear. Anyway, I have no desire to re-open the discussion of whether the Ayers / "palling around with terrorists" campaign rhetoric should be added to this article, after it has been rejected several dozen times. This is not a new proposal, and in general proposals that begin with accusations that the article is a puff piece then wander into this territory yet again are too redundant and malformed to be actionable.Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, he didn't? I guess I was confused about that. The sentiment still stands, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I won't do the whole history again here, but here[12] is a fairly good overview of how it came to be a political issue. In 2005, local Chicago political operative Maria Warren wrote about the 1995 meeting (variously called a "meet-and-greet" or a "tea") on her blog, "Musings & Migraines":[13] "When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread." Ben Smith (journalist) may or may not have been the first mass circulation journalist to pick it up, but he certainly publicized the blog post with this column.[14] After that the claim spread like wildfire that Obama's political career started in their living room, but this is clearly not true. Obama was already a politician at this time and it was not his first meet-and-greet. Nor is it what she said: she said they launched him, not his career. Exactly what did she mean by making that comment ten years after the fact? Nobody knows, and she won't talk about it. But there are a couple of unremarkable interpretations. Anyway, the history of how the contacts between Ayers and Obama because an election issue in 2008 are described in some detail in an article devoted entirely to that subject. Wikidemon (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by the controversy and sometimes vehemence that my comment (above) has drawn. My point remains the same: the Barack Obama article does not seem NPOV -- not enough for Wikipedia. It's almost disgraceful. I'm not for Barack Obama, nor against him. I'm not for Alex Jones, nor against him. However, to say, as one Wikipedian does, that The Obama Deception film (which I neither endorse nor condemn) "is neither significant nor relevant enough to be worth including in this article" can hardly be correct. It has been downloaded more than 2,300,000 times in a short period, from YouTube alone. It is also on Google Video and no doubt downloaded a great many times from there. I, for one, would be ecstatic if a movie I made was so "insignificant" that 2,300,000 people downloaded it in less than six months. I have concerns that the above debate about the Obama article is partisan, and, as I don't live in the USA, this seems quite bizarre to me. Is it to do with many Americans' almost monarchical view of their presidency? Alpheus (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? Fahrenheit 9/11 won a Palme D'Or and it isn't mentioned in George W. Bush, 2003 invasion of Iraq, or even Opposition to the Iraq War, despite (attempting to be/being) a little bit more based in truth than The Obama Deception. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

2,300,000 downloads is not the same thing as 2,300,000 people; if each download represents a person who watched it, say, ten times, that's only 230,000 people. Nor does popularity inform significance or accuracy. DKqwerty (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an 111 minute movie. Your theory is not likely accurate in any sense that people would watch it 10 times.

That's quite a good point, DKquerty, but it's as valid to assume that ten people watched a download as that one person downloaded a YouTube video ten times. As for popularity not indicating significance, I think you're on shaky ground there. If popularity were not a factor, we'd have no references in Wikipedia to The Beatles, The Simpsons or even the President of the United States of America or any elected official. Popularity is always the basis of electoral success, except in rigged elections. Alpheus (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

YouTube view counts can be inflated by having people watch them again and again. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above. It's an 111 minute movie. Repeat viewings are likely, but not numerous viewings.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. How many of those 2+ million hits/downloads have been repeat viewings? Can it be confirmed that the number is not inflated by some people continually reviewing the video to increase the numbers? That alone would disqualify it being a reliable source. Next question is outside youtube, blogs, and "news" sources that would support the video, has any reliable source like CNN, New York Post, Washington Post, Politico, etc covered it, backs up the info in the vid, or given in substational coverage that the common person in the street would know the video? A video questioning the president does not qualify it to be used as a source. Plus, it has to be a rather significant event in Obama's life to be included here. Otherwise, it should be discussed in the presidency article, the public image article, the campaign article, or one of the related controversy articles. Brothejr (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does everyone insist on ignoring this WP:Fringe. Fringe theories are allowed, but there is a test for whether they are included. Stop disregarding them because you think they are fringe. And stop thinking that something is mainstream when it's fringe.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

I sigh and retire from the illogic and inanity of this debate. Alpheus (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sake, if you want to participate in the discussion you have to do more than show up citing a fringe source, then denegrate the editors here for not taking it seriously. Even assuming it's true, that 2 million people (1.5% of the American electorate?) have viewed a fringe source does that say anything about the life and times of the President? If you think so, find reliable sources to support the claim. Your argument that lots of people have viewed this radical material says something about the President is pretty farfetched. Wikidemon (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clear, fringe sources can be used, not that I think it should be used, but I'm tired of people citing fringe sources as though because they are fringe it's a test for them not being included.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Let me put it this way: if I create a video about Obama being a Martian, post it to YouTube, and 5,000,000 people view it, is it reasonable to infer that this is a legitimate criticism? DKqwerty (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wiki's rules require that if there are criticisms of the subject of an article, and if those criticisms can be reliably sourced, they can be included in the article. But, they should never be included in a separate section entitled "Criticism" or some other such thing, as doing so clearly violates NPOV. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

See: WP:V#SELF DKqwerty (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Reliable sourcing is but one of several inclusion thresholds. Others are relevancy, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc. In order, reliable sourcing that children don't like broccoli is not included in the Obama article because it is not sourceable as being relevant to Obama, reliable sourcing that extremists consider Obama a puppet of the great Jewish conspiracy to take over America is not includable because there are very few people who seriously advance this theory, and reliable sourcing that Obama is possibly an anti-American communist tool is POV (although sourcing that Obama is considered any of the foregoing is includable in the sense of reporting an opinion). Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And I should point out that the American Left is more like the European Centrist, not European Left. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That depends on where you look, some places are actually more right-wing (but this is another discussion for another time). Soxwon (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Presidential approval ratings

Here is a citation.[15] Obama's approval rating as of early June per Gallup is flat from when he started office. Here's a link that goes into some more detail.[16] There are lot of other sourced things one can say. One thing that can be said (although most articles about approval ratings do not say it) is that Obama's disapproval rating quickly shot up from 10% to something over 20% in a month, then slowly climbed to about 30%. On the face of it, that seems a lot more remarkable than his approval rating staying fairly stable over the period. But without an explanation that statistic is just a factoid. A statement and citation was removed that the first month of this climb reflects an increase in disapproval among Republicans - that would partly explain it. Is this normal? To be expected? Is it truly a noteworthy statistic? As I said most sources do not seem to find it worth noting, but on the surface it seems to raise questions. Most articles talking about presidential ratings tie dips and spikes, and longer-term patterns, to various events and policy decisions. In fact, the first article cites "no clear pattern" in presidential approval ratings generally, so it's questionable whether they mean much of anything. To that extent presidential approval is another layer of fallout from daily events, which in my opinion seems only indirectly related to the presidency. What is the relevance of an opinion poll? When all is done, the article may or may not have a brief mention of job performance polling. One thing for sure is that we should avoid edit warring. This is a relatively minor factoid. If you care to improve the article, one thing to do is to make sure the citations are in proper format and actually support the claims made. In the case of the disapproval rating it is a bad citation. Not only is it incomplete, it goes to a dynamic application that calls up a graph (which will change over time), and contains no text explanation of its numbers and is thus original research. Surely there is a better source if you want to find one for the factoid, but why include miscellaneous facts at all? Wikidemon (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't think approval or disapproval ratings are of any consequence, especially when coupled with the equally artificial milestone of the first one hundred days. Unless they're notably high or low, like if he were to swing into the high 80% or low 20%, they're nothing worth mentioning. Furthermore, the statement, "although this is mostly due to a decrease in support among Republicans," seems as if it's trying the excuse this uptick; there is no similar justification for his approval ratings, so why is it needed here? The source also deals with his first month, not one hundred days.

Regarding a "text explanation for the numbers", I'm not sure what you mean, but if you're referring to an explanation of methodology, I think Gallup has a track record for proper methodology. That's hardly the point though in regards to the article, it's just not encyclopedic content until the President has finished his term(s) in office and be put into proper historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKqwerty (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Joker123192 is quickly failing to get the point with his constant reversions against consensus (included immediately above), and with no explanation as to why. I see now that he/she has been blocked for edit warring, so we'll see if this calms things down. DK has been a model contributor in this, for what it's worth. The bit about Republican support is not relevant, in my estimation, and does seem to be a weak "explanation" for the increasing disapproval ratings. The real reasons are probably due more to the normal ebb and flow of a presidency than to anything else. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that we just need to say that according to polls, the public's opinion of Obama has remained at a steady 60 or whatever %. As the article says, the approval rating for Obama so far is not really extraordinary especially compared to past presidents. If he all of a sudden gets a 90% approval rating and it stays for a couple of years, that's worth mentioning, or if he all of a sudden had one of the lowest approval ratings of all the presidents. But right now, it's just at an average steady rating that is not considered extraordinary. Deavenger (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, his approval rating isn't anything special after the first 100 days. In fact it's only better than Bush II, Clinton and Nixon if I remember correctly. Also, the first 100 days rating is significant and isn't a number that was made up for fun [Why the First 100 Days Matters] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustydangerfield (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What you have just linked to is a blog post that amounts to an op-ed piece. It does not necessarily represent popular consensus on the subject. The "first 100 days" metric is only a basis by which to judge a president against past presidents' first 100 days, otherwise the 100 days is simply a nice, base ten milestone. Regardless, such comparisons are largely inappropriate for a biography. DKqwerty (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud. There are thousands of reliable sources that can be cited on the 100 days topic, and since it is a gauge used to determine effectiveness against other presidents, it is extremely significant.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

"Current" does not belong

I feel that the use of the term current in the sentience "Barack Hussein Obama II (pronounced /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States." does not belong. If people feel the need to state the chronology of his presidency I think it should be done by actual dates, for example January 20, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.16.148 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Introduction to this article is the standard Introduction for an article about a President of the United States. SMP0328. (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Current is also very pertinent since there are many *former* U.S. Presidents who are still living.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

B.S. Rusty! There arent many former U.S. Presidents living, name five!!!! <sarcasm> --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Presidency Section and the Sandbox, again

I was about to move the Presidency section text from the Sandbox to the main article, when someone put some good content in the article. I've transcribed the new stuff into the Sandbox text with minor revisions. However, to get it to flow, I had to put in the Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy sections we've [actually, I've] talked about. My primary original input (not original research, just new text) is in the Foreign Policy section. It also will be the part that will get the preponderance of POV complaints, I'm guessing-- I tried to be NPOV but the language may sound POVish. Also, please critique the citations. I'll be prompter in moving the text to the article once we have consensus. CouldOughta (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing my own input: There's slightly too much on the early legislation, but I'd propose not thinning it out until the presidency develops some more substance. "Foreign Policy" could benefit from mention of Obama's high early popularity ratings overseas, but the edits would be contentious so I'd rather wait until we have the section in place. I couldn't figure a better end to the North Korea part-- we're kind of in the middle of Obama's (and the world's) response, so I just said "it's a problem" and left it at that. CouldOughta (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much response. I'll give it a few more hours, then assume consensus and move the new text to the article page. 71.179.10.162 (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Reminders

Civility and "Please Don't Bite the Newcomers (Rustydangerfield (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Also, please don't edit war, recognize that we are under article probation, and please use the talk page to discuss changes reasonably intended to improve the article, and not complaints about other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Black president

In the first paragraph: "He is the first African American to hold the office." Why aren't we write black? In Europe this term "African American" is quite unknown. Feketelyuk (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'd guess you aren't have many African Americans in Europe. But now that one has become the President of the United States, perhaps the term will become more familiar to you. Or not. In the meantime, you can read the brief answer to Q2 in the FAQ box at the top of this page. For further reading, you could Google the term. Abrazame (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Drat, I only just now read the friendly reminders. Pardon me, my aren't is in your neck. Abrazame (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a large debate over this; it should be in the archives for Nov/Dec 2008. Some editors thought multi-racial or biracial was the better term and the arguments were long and diverse. Many reliable sources from around the world did indeed describe Obama as America's first black president, but if one accepts African American and black as being synonymous, the overwhelming majority of sources used one of those terms. He's described as African American, rather than black, because that's the term more commonly used in American English, and in matters where there's some debate about which term to use, we often choose one on the basis of self-identification. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We don´t have many African Americans, no, but I´d say the term is fairly well known.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)