Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

Biracial

Obama is actually the first biracial president, not the first African American. To identify him as African American is an insult not only to the multiracial community but also to his mixed heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aketract (talk • contribs) 10:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We've had this discussion many times here before. African-American is the term predominantly used in the United States when referring to a black person. If it is what most reliable sources describe him as and it is what the person uses primarily to describe himself, then that is what we go with in an encyclopedia. The "Early life and career" section notes his mixed heritage, the information is not hidden or excluded in the article. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

uhh? What? That is terribly circular logic but incredibly off the mark. He is also widely considered to be muslim, but we know that is inaccurate and incorrect as well. The article should read "He is widely considerd to be the first African American president, his mother being white, father and African immigrant" or something to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.111 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why not omit the words "african american"? Or at the very least mention that he is the first biracial president? Why should we go by public opinion? Shouldn't be strive to for accuracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aketract (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

While it is technically correct that Obama is bi-racial, he is normally described as African American. Indeed, he describes himself in that manner. With Wikipedia, verifiability always trumps accuracy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that the term African American refers primarily to ancestry rather than race. Obama is African-American the same way Bobby Jindal is Indian American, and Bill Richardson is Mexican American. Also see Q2 on the FAQ.--JayJasper (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this is such a controversial topic shouldn’t the individuals who have the keys to this particular page at least site something in regards to “public opinion” or Obama discussing that he is African-American rather than biracial? It would make the statement more in line with verifiability since "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source." Further the presidency is bigger than any one person, they are inserted into the historical framework. Meaning what Obama thinks and public opinion are both irrelevant; he is both the first biracial and African-American president, when the next biracial president is elected his Wikipedia page will not say he is “the first biracial president” because Obama never claimed it. --Redpanda1 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Biracial" is just not a very notable descriptor, really. The "firsts" among the major classifications of American minorities...African-American, Hispanic, Asian, etc...are what are newsworthy. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not newsworthy? A quick search with "Obama biracial news" gives 680,000 hits. --Redpanda1 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"News" does not equate to "google hits, first off. Second, if one looks at what the hits are actually, y'know, hitting, much of it is just discussion on if African-American or biracial is the better term,few actually use the term "biracial" independently as a descriptor of the president. Oh, and that is before the search results quickly get to charming stories about Rush Limbaugh and the "biracial oreo" comment. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh . . . so first you want evidence for a claim that (A) Obama thinks this or that (B) public opinion in general thinks that -- but then you say that (A) and (B) are irrelevant. You may have a good point, but if so I really don't know what it is. Please think about it carefully and express it cogently. -- Hoary (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... So (A) since there is going to continue to be an argument on this page if Obama is African-American OR Biracial then there should be a citation of a proper source that discusses this issue for verifiability. And by the way (B) it is more historically accurate to say he is the first African-American AND biracial president regardless of what we all think because they are both noteworthy if for no other reason then the level of discussion on Wikipedia and in the 'real world."--Redpanda1 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant regardless of what you think, I'm afraid. African-American is the milestone of choice by reliable sources. That's all there is to it. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So what does it take to get you guys to cite something when you should be citing it according to Wikipedia standards then?--216.83.101.146 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is cited (currently reference 106) when it is mentioned in the paragraph "2008 presidential campaign". It isn't cited in the lede because nothing is, per WP:LEDE ("The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.") and the prevailing consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Modify Lede

I think the lede could be improved by including brief information about his parents. This information is included in the lede of almost all blp. Why not insert it in the middle of this sentence at the *:

Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama *is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. 129.2.64.165 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely disagree. The lede is already quite extensive and there's no reason at all to put information about Obama's parents in it. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Scjessey. Tvoz/talk 08:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential Bias Regarding Unemployment

I understand that the unemployment issue has been central to Barack Obama's administration, but I feel that this article is not presenting a neutral point of view. Two of the three diagrams in this article are related to unemployment and are both used to support Barack Obama. Not only that, but there is criticism from various sources regarding the accuracy of these statistics including scrutiny by Sean Hanady and Stansberry & Associates Research and Investment firm. Because the federal government considers someone unemployed only if they are receiving unemployment benefits from the federal government, people whose benefits have expired (but are still unemployed) are considered employed. This practice produces an unemployment figure significantly lower than the actual unemployment rate. I understand that you might not count this as credible because I have not listed specific sources, but I urge you to look into this issue yourself. Regardless, having the majority of the diagrams in this article related to unemployment presents an unbalanced point of view because there are several other diagrams which readers will be interested in (and are not at all trivial), particularly charts regarding the national debt or the price of gasoline within the last four (or more) years. I understand that I have not been very formal, but please consider my opinions and do not immediately discredit my arguments because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.197.21 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%129.2.129.220 (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see the specific sources. (By "Sean Hanady", do you mean Sean Hannity? By "Stansberry & Associates Research and Investment firm" do you mean an outfit run by Porter Stansberry? I don't see how a publication by either would be a reliable source.) The US government is of course very largely responsible for its national debt, but I wonder why you bring up the price of oil. (Do you have in mind taxes on oil?) -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof should be on the one trying to change the unemployment statistics, especially if they can't even spell Hannity's name right. & of course that's the opinionated gentleman from Fox (Fair & Balanced "News")V Schauf (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Improve this page"

I just wanted to ask why there is that annoying "improve this page" banner on this article. At first I thought it was a new policy for all sprotected articles, but George W Bush doesn't get one... disabled it in my preferences but is there a relevant discussion somewhere for including it? It's not as though the "edit" and "talk" tabs are hard to find or anything, I do hate flashy banners and other such scripts on articles... IforgotAboutSemiProtection (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know too - and not a good idea for an FA on article probation, if you ask me. Tvoz/talk 07:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"economic policy" section

A couple thoughts. One, regarding the image (Image:UR_BLS_Jan09_Jan12.PNG) of "unemployment rate", the scale is totally misleading, despite the data being accurate. I realize they're trying to put the emphasis on the change that occurred while he is in office but starting the graph at 8%, I think, makes it difficult to read and to keep in perspective.

Second, both sections on unemployment have accompanying photos, but no such image accompanies the section on the national debt in between. I really think a graph similar to the two already displayed in that section, showing the public debt before and after his inauguration, would be appropriate. IforgotAboutSemiProtection (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

100% agree. The image is very misleading. The scale and starting points should be changed. Or else, we will be forced to remove it.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.220 (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me - "they're trying to put the emphasis"? AGF please. Tvoz/talk 08:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Domestic Policy

There is nothing in the Domestic Policy section about the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This is huge. Why is not included? Elodoth (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Who says it is "huge"? Do you have reliable sources saying this? And is it "huge" in relation to Obama's entire life or his presidency? Remember, this article is a summary of a larger body of articles covering Barack Obama, and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is already covered in Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

chicago job title again

check the archives for many discussions about this

i've been around the block a couple times now changing his job title to lecturer (which was his job title and reflected his duties) from teacher /teaching variants. teacher implies a spot on the faculty (at least part time) and i'm fairly sure he wasn't faculty. i could be wrong. i work at a uni and am aware of the stratification. it offends some academics to see uncredentialed folks get such promotions. the continued job-inflation by some editors seems to be hagiographic and against NPOV. Cramyourspam (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC) The fact that you say that means you are well aware of the multiple discussions and subsequent consensus on the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC) And, it is clearly explicated in the article and notes. Tvoz/talk 07:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am here to launch a proposal to ensure that the article on Obama can be 100% NPOV. I am a Liberal myself (and a pretty extreme one at that) and after reviewing the article, as well as numerous articles bashing Wikipedia's Obama article as being not NPOV, I am proposing that we create a "Controversy" section. Again, this is an attempt to make sure that ALL readers are satisfied and ALL points of view are covered. I again want to point out that I am a Liberal and I like Obama, but controversies exist, and we have rules that are designed to provide an encyclopedia experience that satisfies all users. This article doesn't cut it right now.

Now. My idea is that we create a section that factually and non biasedly states the critiques that some have had with him. If you disagree with me then that's fine, but I would like to know why.

This is for the goal of Wikipedia. Not my pollitical satisfaction. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 18:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length repeatedly. It might be a good idea to check out the the archives concering this topic to see if you have an argument in favor of such a section that has not been sufficiently addressed in prior discussions.--JayJasper (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Also see Q6 on the FAQ for this article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily, are you kidding? They're the ones that staged the fake Wikipedia incident that lead to article probation and the arbcom case. Might as well toss in Weekly World News (Obama was born on Mars) and the Onion ([4] Obama is a cactus) if we're going there. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not to placate readers who may subscribe to WP:FRINGE politics. There are entire articles elsewhere in the project devoted to their hi-jinx, a subject notable in its own right if not relevant or significant enough to include in a biography of the President. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page. Many news outlets (nearly every single one that reported on this article) has criticized the neutrality. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 20:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, you're not really bringing much to the table, and citing a bad web blog like WorldNetDaily as an arbiter of what "bias" raises huge red flags around here. Concrete suggestions will generally merit concrete replies, while vague generalizations are usually met with vague dismissals. If there is a specific passage in the article you find problematic, by all means point it out. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh OK. Then explain to me why all of you got so defensive when I brought this up? Past discussions say that "There has been no notable controversies with Obama." Oh really? What about all the hype with his nationality? And why does the article about such controversy not get linked to from this article? And why does nearly every single article about most politicians highlight their factual goods and bads while this one only highlights the factual goods? Why does there seem to be so much guarding over this article? You know what? I came here to propose a decision to make this article suit the site rules, and you are all being too strung on your bias towards the article that you fail to see the big picture. Wether you like it or not, any editor who dissagrees with a proposal to improve an article's overall compliance with the rules of the site is breaking the rules in my opinion. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 20:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

i'm no republican, but it seems to me that hagiography is okay in the obama article, but anything potentially non-positive is readily removed --all declared debated and resolved long ago. and/or fringe. the article's key editors will never yield. and, that said, anyone suggesting WorldNetDaily is a reliable source needs to rethink that. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's reliable, but simply that it criticizes the article, which is true. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK so Obama can't have a controversies section but at the other extreme end of the spectrum, Rush Limbaugh can? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What people are trying to say in response is that this is not a forum for general discussions about Obama or Wikipedia. Please make an actionable proposal (something a little more concrete than "let's add a controversies section"—add what for example?). Johnuniq (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to fucking gossip about him. I'm here to assert that my stance on that this article is violating a rule. If you can't obviously see that then you need to read more and not try to stop me by blasting irrelivent rules.

For example, look at this article. it is not linked to from the main Obama article and is therefore a WP:CFORK violation. I could count so much more too. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC) We have an article for numerous controversies surrounding him and yet, no mention in the main article is present. [5][6][7][8][9][10] Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see the box at the top of this talk page (just above the table of contents): "This article has been placed on article probation". Edits and comments regarding this topic are required to be of a higher standard than what is tolerated in other topics. Discussion works best with specific proposals—are you suggesting that each of those topics be mentioned in a controversies section here? As one example, birther claims are not usable in this article as to do so would give undue importance to a fringe belief. Johnuniq (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversy sections are a bad idea in general. They're crap magnets. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the article probation or if you think controversy sections are crap magnets This is an encyclopedia. We have rules. "Higher Standard" does not mean "Rule Free" you can't just go twist rules to make an article suit your point of view. We have articles here that describe notable incidents regarding a major pollitical figure (Obama). These are not linked to from the main article. You are all doing a WP:CFORK violation. Controversy sections are not "crap holes" they are factual sections that are designed to factually show issues that are part of a person's biography. It improves the overall encyclopedia. Life is not butterflies and flowers. There are problems and those who cannot accept that need lessons on life. Obama's presidency has not been butterflies and flowers either. This article is written as though it was. That violates the rules. There needs to be a solution. I proposed one. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make accusations about other editors here. We are not biased, the article is not biased, we are not breaking rules, and we're not some kind of pro-Obama cabal. Further complaints like that are not going to convince anyone to change their opinion, and will probably lead people to tune out and/or close the thread as a failed proposal. You don't have to care about article probation, only to heed it. The reason we are defensive is that the article has regularly required defending - the log of editors blocked for behavioral violations, particularly trolling and sockpuppetry, is well into the three digits and we've collectively lost hundreds if not thousands of hours dealing with the mess. The question of including the conspiracy theories in the article has come up a number of times before. It's a fair proposal but any mention would basically be half a sentence and a link in the public image section, and it has not gained consensus. The questions of adding a controversy section or intentionally biasing the article to be more negative have come up many times and been soundly rejected as POV and unencyclopedic. Thank you for your concern but as far as I can see there is nothing new to discuss that would merit a reconsideration of the long-term consensus on the matter. As others have said, if you have a specific suggestion of content to change that you're willing to support with sources and a content argument let's hear it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why is an opposite POV vio on Obama not a problem? The mess going on is one you made yourself by trying to be so sparkle sparkle That's why so many people are writing that stuff in the article! Their point of view is not satisfied so they bash him! Most are newbies who don't know any better and just add their critisicisms. Don't you understand that adding a section about controversies would make the vandalism you deal with go down? Open your eyes. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(before edit conflict) There's nothing to be gained from this line of discussion. Your speculation about what went on here for the past 3-4 years is flat wrong, and even if the questions were patient and respectful in the asking it's probably not worth retelling the history of this article's troubles. Other than a small amount of deleted stuff it's all there in tens of millions of bytes of edit histories, there for the discovery. There is no specific or viable proposal for changing article content here, much less something that convinces me that one is in order. I'll keep an eye on things to see if anything emerges. Meanwhile I'd prefer to go back to the sidelines and leave it at that. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

To adress Wikidemon here is what I have to say. 1. Your opinions are not changeable because you have a WP:COI

2. If you are defending ANY article then you are pro-it.

3. Probation does not mean 100% pro-Obama edits.

4. As noted above, the article gets vandalism because people's views are not expressed. So they express themselves. By the way, nobody forces you to defend the article so you don't HAVE to.

5. It is a fair proposal isn't it? BTW, it would be a full and well written PARAGRAPH. Not half a zzzzzz......

6. Add a "Controversies" section with mentions of The citizenship conspiracy theories, Religion conspiracy theories, Bill Ayers controversy, and the Jeremiah Wright Controversy, with the possible mention of the "Shark Fin Soup Restaurant" controversy <- Just a thought. ANYWAYS all of those things except the soup thing all have articles and those articles have sources. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to tone the language down and back off from these constant accusations of bad faith. If your goal is to inject non-NPOV content from absurdly unreliable sources such as WND, then you're never going to succeed. Sorry, it's just never going to happen. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No. I WANT TO AVOID non-nopv edits. I would NEVER add stuff from WND. I would add the same or similar content used in the Wikipedia articles describing the controversies that are considered to be NPOV.

By the way, Wikipedia is not censored. Added in this pair of edits by Hghyux

Hghyux: I'm here to assert that my stance on that this article is violating a rule: My most charitable inference from this (and other evidence here) is that you are very confused. If you have a proposal, type it in, print it out, revise it, make sure that it makes sense, and only then post it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely in agreement with A Quest For Knowledge, who said above "Controversy sections are a bad idea in general. They're crap magnets." I will support any moves to remove them from most articles. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(after multiple edit conflict, addressing original poster) No to Ayers, Wright, and Chinese Soup, for reasons extensively discussed before - they are far too tenuously connected to the biographical history of the President, and could only be presented in an encyclopedic fashion as part of telling the history of election-year partisan campaign politics, something that would require a foundation far too long for this article. I'm probably in the minority but I would go along with a consensus to mention the birther and secret Muslim thing briefly as part of a political smear and disproven fringe movement affecting public perception, but I'm in the minority and such proposals have not gained traction before. Either way, no to treating them as bona fide controversies, criticisms, or questions of fact, they're simply not true and any encyclopedic value there is in the coverage of American mass culture and politics (which is why they are better presented in separate articles closer to those subjects). You didn't have the benefit of my caution above before writing points #1-5 so I'll make it as clear as I can: speaking for myself, please do NOT impugn my integrity as an editor here - I doubt the other editors are too swift on that either. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There will never be a "controversies" section in this BLP article. The sooner that demand is dropped, the better. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The opening stance on the Obama article with wether each claim is (F)-neutral fact, (PF)-positive fact, (NF)-negative fact

Barack Hussein Obama II (i/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States.(F) He is the first African American to hold the office.(F) Obama previously served as a United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned following his victory in the 2008 presidential election.(F)

Born in Honolulu, Hawaii(F), Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School(PF), where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.(PF) He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree.(F) He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.(F) He served three terms(PF) representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.(F)

Following an unsuccessful bid against the Democratic incumbent for a seat in the United States House of Representatives in 2000(NF), Obama ran for the United States Senate in 2004.(F) Several events brought him to national attention during the campaign, including his victory in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary for the Senate election(PF) and his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.(PF) He won election to the U.S. Senate in Illinois in November 2004.(PF) His presidential campaign began in February 2007,(F) and after a close campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he won his party's nomination.(PF) In the 2008 presidential election, he defeated Republican nominee John McCain,(PF) and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009.(F) Nine months later, Obama was named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.(PF)

As president, Obama signed economic stimulus legislation in the form of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Tax Relief,(F) Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization,(F) and Job Creation Act of 2010. Other domestic policy initiatives include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,(F) the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,(F) the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010(F) and the Budget Control Act of 2011.(F) In foreign policy, he ended the war in Iraq,(F) increased troop levels in Afghanistan,(F) signed the New START arms control treaty with Russia,(F) ordered US involvement in the 2011 Libya military intervention,(F) and ordered the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden.(PF)

TOTALS:

NEUTRAL FACT-19

POSITIVE FACT-9

NEGATIVE FACT-1

POSITIVELY BIASED BY 8 CLAIMS.

The opening stance on the GW Bush article with wether each claim is (F)-neutral fact, (PF)-positive fact, (NF)-negative fact

George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946)(F) is an American politician(F) who served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009(F) and the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000.(F)

Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut.(F) He is the eldest son of Barbara Bush and 41st President George H. W. Bush, making him the second American president to have been the son of a former president.[4](F) He is also the brother of Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida.(F)

After graduating from Yale University in 1968 and Harvard Business School in 1975, Bush worked in oil businesses.(F) He married Laura Welch in 1977(F) and ran unsuccessfully for the House of Representatives shortly thereafter.(NF) He later co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team before defeating Ann Richards in the 1994 Texas gubernatorial election.(PF) In a close and controversial election, Bush was elected President in 2000 as the Republican candidate, defeating Vice President Al Gore in the Electoral College.(PF)

Early on, the Bush administration withdrew from a number of international treaty processes, notably the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.[5](NF) A series of terrorist attacks occurred eight months into Bush's first term as president on September 11, 2001.(NF) In response, Bush announced the War on Terror, an international military campaign which included the war in Afghanistan launched in 2001 and the war in Iraq launched in 2003.(F) In addition to national security issues, Bush promoted policies on the economy, health care, education, and social security reform.(F) He signed into law broad tax cuts, the PATRIOT Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and Medicare prescription drug benefits for seniors.(F) His tenure saw national debates on immigration, Social Security, electronic surveillance, and enhanced interrogation techniques.(F)

Bush successfully ran for re-election against Democratic Senator John Kerry in 2004, in another relatively close election.(F) After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism from across the political spectrum.[6][7][8](NF) In 2005, the Bush Administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina.[9][10][11](NF) Following this and other controversies, as well as the growing unpopularity of the Iraq War(NF), Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections.(F) In December 2007, the United States entered its longest post–World War II recession,(NF) prompting the Bush Administration to enact multiple economic programs intended to preserve the country's financial system.(F) Though Bush was popular in the U.S. for much of his first term,[12](PF) his popularity declined sharply during his second.(NF) He was a highly controversial figure internationally,(NF) with public protests occurring even during visits to close allies, such as the United Kingdom.[13](NF)

After leaving office, Bush returned to Texas and purchased a home in a suburban area of Dallas.(F) He is currently a public speaker and has written a book about his life entitled Decision Points.[14](F)

TOTALS:

NEUTRAL FACT-16

POSITIVE FACT-3

NEGATIVE FACT-10

NEGATIVELY BIASED BY 7 CLAIMS

So as you can see, there is bias in the Obama article and bias in the bush article. I say we change this. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. We don't count facts as negative or positive and try to achieve some sort of an artificial balance. That WOULD be POV. Your classification of many of those facts as negative or otherwise is meaningless. Bush WAS "a highly controversial figure internationally". Obama isn't. It's completely true that Bush's "popularity declined sharply during his second" and it would be ridiculous to leave it out. Where is the problem? HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have brought this dispute to the mediation cabal so we can find a dispute resolution. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh . . . you may wish to make the appeal that you have posted there look a bit more comprehensible and persuasive. (You're asked what steps you've already taken; you reply that this appeal is your first step. You list ten users as exemplifying a list of ten users. Etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

−

it is looking like that one user's wish for a controversies section won't go anywhere. that's probably good. it is interesting though to go to the w bush article and do a find-search for controv in order to catch every version of controversy (singular, plural) and w has at least seven or eight: gitmo controversy, u.s. attys controversy, fisa controversy, judicial appts controversy, etc. many link off to sep articles on the subjects. the obama article has just one controv and it is not about obama but refers to how obama dropped rev wright after wright made controversial remarks. it is POV to assert that obama has done nothing potentially controversial. just to name a few possible examples: the appointing his own healthcare advocate to scotus, the unread healthcare bill, repealing DADT, leaving iraq, the pre Beer summit comments, the Joe the Plumber income redistribution comments, naming rev wright his spiritual advisor and then disavowing him, returning the uk's churchill statue, bowing to foreign monarchs, appointing policy tsars outside of the usual oversight process, extraordinary tidings to goldman sachs, family vacation expenses, not-investigating black panther party polling place activity, suing arizona, investigating arizona officials, leaving af-pak, taxing in 2010 for health benefits to start after 2014, appointment of accused marxist/terrorist personnel. just to name a few. don't get me wrong: i like obama. i voted for him (there i said it). i'm not saying i see those items as controversial-as-in-bad, i am only saying that some folks on the right and center might see some of those as controversial. to be fair we ought to look more closely at the article's tone and perhaps link to a controversy or two. maybe try a 4:1 bush/obama controversy ratio just to get started. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

^100% READ MY MIND Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this is just getting into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. We're not here to discuss your personal feelings on Obama or some inane chatter you read on this or that blog. You do realize that many of the "controversies" you just listed are debunked myths, half-truths or outright conspiracy theories, right? --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A major challenge with articles like this is separating Republicans vs Democrat political exchanges from what might be true controversies. In any party political system, it's the job of those not in power to find fault with those in power. That doesn't mean that all the issues they raise are true "controversies", and are often more related to hatred of a party than true faults with the incumbent. That Bush was controversial internationally, and Obama isn't, is just fact, not POV. That Bush's popularity declined in his second term is just fact, not POV. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I smell a resurgence of election year trolls trying to change the article into an conservative attack piece. Maybe they might be some old POV-Warriors. I especially love how one has to claim that they are 100% liberal to make their POV comments seem acceptable. 74.79.34.29 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not conservative I am very liberal. Doesn't it bother anyone that nearly every single news article on this article is about how the article is positively oriented? I'm not a troll either I'm actually an established user who reverts vandalism. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparing Obama to Limbaugh isn't going to get us anywhere: Limbaugh is one of those people who will say something controversial or even borderline misogynist/racist/etc and say, "I'm only asking questions". Obama is a politician, for which doing that would be surely political suicide. We're best off looking at other politicians' articles; Mitt Romney is the best example. We don't harp on about how it's so controversial how he passed a health reform bill that is functionally more left-wing than Obamacare, even though that was a key issue during the primaries (and the evident proof that he was a RINO). The conservative players in American politics want Obama to do a Gitmo but all it looks like is Vince Foster for a new president - which, I might add, doesn't even get a mention in the Clinton article. Because it's now getting to the point where opponents of a politician will throw everything - even his wife's once-a-month trip to a burger restaurant - to see what sticks. Criticising Bush for the fact his wife ran a stop sign 50 years ago never happened... well, except that for that one time.

Especially in an election year, we need to treat the candidates as neutrally and drily as possible. And especially on a featured article. If an article came to FAC with such a section, I would oppose it without reading as it prima facie violates NPOV. The existence of controversy/crticism sections/articles, by default, gives negative content a place to ferment without allowing the positive content its suitably weighted response. Criticism of YouTube, when it existed, was full of baying about how content was or was not on YouTube, with no mentions of YouTube's actions in response. Hell, at some points it dedicated paragraphs to a redesign that people didn't like. All such articles and sections tend to that. It is impossible to have a neutral controversy or critcism section, and nearly impossible (unless there's, you know, an actual controversy) to have a neutral controversy article.

Oh, and the existence of such sections in articles doesn't mean this article should have such a section. Wikipedia articles are a race to the top (fnarr), not a race to the bottom. Politician articles should emulate this article or John McCain (both FAs), not this article should emulate Nicolas Sarkozy (B-class, note the neutrality tag). It's why "What about X?" is not just an AfD fallacy. We should all, Democrat or Republican, communist or capitalist, male or female, black or white, aim to have neutrality for all articles, especially for the concepts we are opposed to. I'm a member of the Liberal Democrats here in the UK, but I helped review, and push the article for Ed Miliband, the leader of a rival party, to GA standard, precisely because I didn't want to put my opinion of how effective he is as a party leader into the article. It'd be lovely to have some visible editors in the conservative mainstream helping with this article, as a cross-ideological unity breaking what may look like an echo chamber, but from experience, most of those editors aren't really interested.

If you believe that content is seriously missing, then bring it up and discuss it without alleging stuff like liberal bias, because the people who maintain this article won't be able to differentiate you from the right-wing trolls that try to use this as an attack piece (such as this shit). A lot of us have been maintaining this article since the 2008 election, so we often short-circuit discussions which even look fishy to save time arguing over whether he's black/mulatto, etc. But if someone calmly comes and says "what about this?", helps find sources, and above all else, is fully co-operative, then you have a better chance of seeing the content in the article. For example, I think the health care reform section needs to discuss the PPACA lawsuits, but I recognise this is a high-visibility article about a high-profile person, under semi-protection and article probation. For that reason alone, I would personally go to the talk page and work with those who maintain the article. Hope this helps. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 13:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh... "political suicide" eh? So you admit that the article is biased? It doesn't matter what you think. I am not adding POV material. Just a neutral paragraphs that says some of his mistakes. Whether you like it or not, mistakes are fact and can be included. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC) (Note: moved down to ensure cohesiveness. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC))

All I want is the article to be neutral. As of now it is not adhering to NPOV and needs to be fixed. I don't care how. Just that we come to a solution to fix the positive orientation in the article to a neutral orientation. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be political suicide for Obama to, say, call Sandra Fluke a slut. Hence why politicians that do do that don't last very long. Santorum was humiliated at the next election and ended lost in the political wilderness for several years after his comments about homosexuality, for example. But neutrality is not an zero-sum game, where positive facts must be of an equal number to negative facts. We do say in Richard Nixon that he helped Sino-American relations, as that was a good thing. But we don't balance out Watergate by saying that he was scared of the communist liberals, etc. Watergate, I should add, only constitutes a small part of his presidential biography on Wikipedia, and that was a scandal that resulted in the only presidential resignation in history (and may have resulted in the only removal in history, if you believe he jumped before he was pushed). That's why we should talk about his conflict with the Republicans over legislation, but in the context of a polarized and rightward-shifting Republican Party, because that is part of his presidency. Not stuff like the birth certificate, or his religion; no-one serious actually disputes that he was born in Hawaii and is a Christian. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I swear this is so stupid that I have to go through this just to edit the article. Good luck to you all. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hghyux - I made explicit responses to a couple of your criticisms, when you compared the Dubya and Obama articles. (You made a lot. I don't have as much spare time as you.) You have not responded. Prove that your interest is in Discussion, rather than just dictating. HiLo48 (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My simple response is that while we don't try to achieve an artificial balance, this shows the dramatic differences between the openness of saying controversy to Bush yet it is very closed with Obama. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 17:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's just another repeat of your original broad, sweeping complaint. You did not respond to what I said. On this page we are supposed to discuss. You're not doing that. HiLo48 (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't like my answer but I'm done here. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 17:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit Request on April 19 2012

Could be nitpicking here, but in the Domestic policy section it says "The most recent increase in the U.S. debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion was signed into law on February 12, 2010.[152] " which is clearly outdated. The ceiling was most recently raised on January 30, 2012 to a $16.394 trillion. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/charts/charts_debt.htm Kinda scared to change anything myself so if one of the other editor could update it, it would be appreciated. --DeliciousMeatz (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace

There is a at least somewhat credible belief held by many that Obama was not, in fact, born in Honolulu, HI, as the article states. This issue has been one of effect during the time of his campaign for president to the present. This article should include this issue, in a neutral way, for it to be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.63.137 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See Q5 on the FAQ and note that there is an separate article on that subject, see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.--JayJasper (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I recommend to the OP to never accept "facts" delivered by someone's political opponents as being likely to be in any way true. There are always better sources. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Misleading graphic

I was quite puzzled by the graphic on health care costs. It says "Maximum Out-of-Pocket Premium as Percentage of Family Income and federal poverty level, under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014" which to me said that as the level of poverty rises, people will be asked to pay more!!

This cannot be so. The entry should be amended as follows (I think) "Maximum Out-of-Pocket Premium as Percentage of Family Income and by income level expressed as a % of the FPL, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, starting in 2014" I had no idea what FPL meant so a link to the article would be helpful.

I don't know if anyone would have the time to do this. but I think it more sensible to label the x Axis as "level of poverty (income as a % of fpl) and reversing the sequence on the x axis so that it shows increasing poverty not reducing poverty. The graph would then slope down. The graphic would then become more intuitive (i.e. the poorer you are the less you will have to pay as a percentage of your income. The overall graph could then be given a much more meaningful main title such as "Effect of subsidies on premiums paid by the poor". This would be much more intuitive to read in my opinion than that which is there currently.84.250.230.158 (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

₭໕ັັັ₭afkegjntrglmgelr'kgmkwel'g vqE:RLGKTo5v4 pjgoqi45gjmreaklga.m,fadfff